• Users Online: 157
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 

 Table of Contents  
REVIEW ARTICLE
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 41  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 1-9

Major challenges in dermatophytosis treatment: current options and future visions


Department of Microbiology, Al-Shomally General Hospital, Babil, Iraq

Date of Submission25-Apr-2020
Date of Acceptance03-Jun-2020
Date of Web Publication23-Dec-2020

Correspondence Address:
Falah H.O AL-Khikani
Department of Microbiology, Al-Shomally General Hospital, Babil
Iraq
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/ejdv.ejdv_23_20

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 


There is no part of the world can be cleared of the infection with dermatophytosis. Millions of persons and animals around the world are infected with specialized filamentous fungi called superficial infections of which dermatophyte are the most common agents. Dermatophyte infection incorporates a broad range of diseases involving particularly the nails, hair, and the skin. These infections were considered the most common causative agents of a patient visiting the dermatology. Dermatophytosis is mainly due to different species of dermatophytes that infect the cutaneous layer of the skin. There are many problems in the treatment of dermatophytosis that deserve to highlight because few studies have discussed this issue, especially dermatophyte management challenges became the state of anxiety in physicians and causing alarming distress to the patients recently. So the current review may serve as an impetus for researchers working in the field of medical mycology and antifungal drug design, as well as rationally reports and critically analyses the available knowledge by focusing and mentioning future steps strategies trying to find appropriate solutions regarding challenges in dermatophytosis management.

Keywords: antifungal drug, antifungal resistance, dermatophyte, dermatophytosis


How to cite this article:
AL-Khikani FH, Ayit AS. Major challenges in dermatophytosis treatment: current options and future visions. Egypt J Dermatol Venerol 2021;41:1-9

How to cite this URL:
AL-Khikani FH, Ayit AS. Major challenges in dermatophytosis treatment: current options and future visions. Egypt J Dermatol Venerol [serial online] 2021 [cited 2022 Oct 1];41:1-9. Available from: http://www.ejdv.eg.net/text.asp?2021/41/1/1/304326




  Introduction Top


Superficial mycoses are among the most frequent forms of human infections, affecting more than 20–25% of the world’s population [1],[2]. Dermatophytosis is caused by dermatophytes [3]. It is considered a prevalent skin disease worldwide [4]. These diseases should be differentiated from other cutaneous fungal disease [5],[6]. Dermatophytes are a special group of keratinophilic fungi which can live on keratin-rich materials that are found in soil or the human and animal skin [7],[8],[9].

The resistance of dermatophyte species to antifungal drugs was elevated significantly because of the increase in the number of persons with a deficiency in the immune system [10],[11], Immunocompromised patients with prolonged prophylaxis antifungal agents leads to the emergence of resistant strains of dermatophytes. Unfortunately, the widespread use of antifungal agents to treat these infections has led to the development of drug resistance. Thus, drug resistance in pathogenic fungi, including the dermatophyte, is of increasing importance [11].

Dermatophytosis can occur in human and animals [12],[13],[14]. In-vitro test of any new drug is always considered the first step to evaluate its therapeutic activity, followed by choosing a suitable animal model in vivo to determine the therapeutical nature of such a new drug [15],[16]. Dermatophytosis to be cured usually requires at least 2 weeks to a month in all dermatophyte infection approximately; however, it requires about 6 months in cases of tinea onychomycosis [17].

Chronic dermatophyte infections have been observed in the last few years with increasing prevalence and incidence among various regions [18]. Traveling and migration have a crucial role in the prevalence of dermatophytosis. The contagious nature of dermatophytosis make it easy to spread from person to another or from animals to humans.

As with any antimicrobial drug, antifungal agents have adverse effects. Dermatophytosis management became a true problem in some people like the elderly, pregnant women, and children because some antifungal drugs may have dangerous side effects [19]. The vaccine for dermatophyte infection is unavailable for humans at this moment.

This review focuses on understanding the major problems in the treatment of dermatophyte infection by providing a rational and critical discussion on the available knowledge to obtain a clear future vision regarding dermatophytosis management.

Antifungal resistance in dermatophytes

In general, clinical antifungal resistance is defined as persistence of infection or symptoms in spite of administration of appropriate antifungal agents, and consequent failure to eliminate the fungal infection.

Drug resistance in dermatophyte infection is so important an issue [10]. Antifungal drug resistance of dermatophyte and other pathogenic mycoses increased alarmingly, due to elevated numbers of persons with HIV [10],[11], long living of these patients with antifungal agent treatment lead to the emergence of resistant strains of pathogenic microbes including dermatophytes [11]. Dermatophyte drug resistance emerged in seven isolates from 36 dermatophytes revealed resistance to one or more drugs such as itraconazole, ketoconazole, and voriconazole in addition to fluconazole [20].

The prevalence of azole resistance in dermatophytes has been reported to be as high as 19% in certain areas worldwide [11]. Consequently, the evaluation of antifungal susceptibility of dermatophytes is important for the surveillance of antifungal resistance development.

To evaluate dermatophyte resistance pattern test, 80 patients of all age groups with a clinical diagnosis of dermatophytosis were involved. Resistance against fluconazole and terbinafine was the most common, representing 61.33 and 48%, respectively. Resistance against fluconazole was noted among all species of dermatophytes, followed by terbinafine and clotrimazole. Therefore, the increasing trend of resistance against dermatophyte treatment should be based on antifungal sensitivity testing [21].

The major drug resistance mechanisms in dermatophytes are efflux pump proteins overexpression and biofilm formation [22],[23], modifications of target enzymes, overexpression of genes encoding ATP-binding cassette transporters and stress-response-related proteins [10] ([Figure 1]).
Figure 1 Mechanisms actions of drug resistance in dermatophyte.

Click here to view


There are uncompleted information regarding the mechanism of antifungal agent resistance regarding the crucial problem in dermatophyte infection treatment, so more studies are demanded to increase our information about the nature of resistance mechanisms in dermatophytes.

It is necessary to search for new drugs because of the increase of resistant isolates [24]. Terbinafine resistance has been recorded for the first time clearly in 2003 [25]. Furthermore, six isolated Trichophyton rubrum resistant to terbinafine have also been reported [26]. Another study revealed resistance of T. rubrum to terbinafine with a minimum inhibitory concentration of more than 4 μg/ml [27]. Antifungal agent resistance may be enhanced and increased by recurrent dermatophyte infections that lead to the emergence of new strains that have the ability to resist conventional antifungal drugs [11].

Limited number of antifungal agent availability

To discover new antifungal agents, we need a long time may be more than a decade, so existing drugs can give satisfying results regarding dermatophyte treatment when these drugs formed in other formulas was found to be effective. This may help add new antifungal drugs to manage dermatophytosis [22]. Since we have few numbers of antifungal agents available for dermatophyte infection, so new improved antifungal is required by modification of traditional drugs chemically or structurally [22]. Another important issue is combination of antifungal drugs to obtain the synergic action such as a combination of topical agents with anti-inflammatory drugs [17],[22].

The major two antifungal drug classes to treat dermatophyte infection are azole as (tioconazole, clotrimazole, oxiconazole, econazole, miconazole) and allylamine as (terbinafine and naftifine). Terbinafine is the most common topical treatment of dermatophytosis [17]. There is no evidence regarding the superiority of one topical antifungal class over another drug with cure outcome at the end of management [27],[28],[29],[30]. The natural sources considered promising branch for discovering a new antifungal agents by preparing modern compounds [31].

Investigating the antifungal activity of epigallocatechin 3-O-gallate (EGCg) and antifungal agents against 35 of dermatophytes clinically isolated have been studied. These activities of EGCg were approximately fourfold higher than those of fluconazole and were 4-fold to 16-fold higher than flucytosine. This result indicates that EGCg can inhibit pathogenic dermatophyte species [32].

Nine plant essential oils, were evaluated for their antidermatophytic properties. All essential oils were active against the dermatophyte. The minimum inhibitory concentration (MICs) recorded for the plant oils tested ranged from 0.25 to 4 mg/ml [33].

Recent revolutions and high prevalence rate of dermatophytosis

Through the past 20 years, the predominance of fungal infection significantly increased, due to many reasons, as an inappropriate way for medication administration [11]. Also a high prevalence of dermatophytosis can be seen in AIDS patients due to their weak immune system that makes them more susceptible to fungal infections [24].

There are about 100 000 species from millions of fungal species on the earth that can infect humans and animals, especially in tropical and temperate countries [1],[34],[35]. Dermatophytes are filamentous fungi naturally living on keratinous materials found in soil [7]. They include at least 40 different species which have some different morphological characters [1],[36]

The predominance of dermatophytosis is about 20–25% of the total population of the worlds [1],[2]. This disease causes chronic morbidity with a high prevalence distribution in the entire world [37],[38]. It takes a different pattern of infection which reflects a variable geographic distribution [39]. The most favorite growth conditions for dermatophytes are moisture and warmth that are regarding as encouraging factors in tropical countries [11]. Other conditions required for dermatophyte growth and development are a low degree of hygiene, hot weather with physical activity, and increased sweating [40]. However, the epidemiology of such disease has changed due to lifestyle, migration, socioeconomic conditions, drug therapy, and immunosuppressive state [1],[39].

T. rubrum is the predominant isolates from humans followed by Trichophyton mentagrophytes [41],[42],[43],[44]. This is clear in Europe when a high incidence of T. rubrum infection was recorded [1]. Traveling and migration have a crucial role in the prevalence of dermatophytosis, so new species or strains can be detected in any region in the world that never has been found before. The contagious nature of dermatophytosis makes it easy to spread from person to person or from animals to humans [1].

Prevalence and incidence of dermatophytosis can be enhanced by adaptation to be stored as spores in household dust for long years, the dust act as a reservoir [1]. Dermatophyte infections with chronic disorders have been observed clearly in the last few years, with increasing prevalence and incidence [18],[45]; these chronic infections appeared difficult to treat [45]. At the present, dermatophytosis revealed a high recurrent infection that never seen before [46].

Long duration of treatment

Dermatophytosis treatment may require a longer period of weeks to months as in onychomycosis treatment [17]. Long duration of treatment is considered a problem associated with the use of any antifungal drugs [22].

Recovery in a short period from dermatophytosis became urgent issues because long-duration management is considered expensive and time losing, so development of antifungal agents with short duration is important to improve the quality of patient’s life as well as considered additional reason to prevent emergence of dermatophyte-resistant strains due to long management that gives fungus chance to be resistant [11]. Quality of life of patients will be increased when new drugs are used to cure infectious lesions in a short time [22].

Side effects associated with dermatophyte agents

As with any antimicrobial drug, antifungal agents have adverse effects that have been reported [47],[48],[49],[50],[51]. Management of this infection became a true problem in some people groups as the elderly, children and pregnant women; adverse effects are unacceptable in these groups [52].

At present, information concerning systemic antifungal of dermatophytosis drugs during pregnancy is incomplete [52]. Serum absorption tends to be minimal with topical therapy [17]. So, topical antifungal drug is recommended in pregnant women because topical drugs are effective and safe with low risks compared with systemic antifungal agents [18],[30]. It is worthy to mention that topical antifungal agents have no side effects when used during lactation [53]. Topical preparations are much less costly than orally administered antifungal drugs and cause minimal adverse side effects [54],[55].

Some drugs such as allylamines and azole antifungal classes are utilized topically in pregnant women, children, and the elderly [52]. Systemic terbinafine are safe in the elderly because it lacks cardiac complications, while it must be stopped in lactation and pregnancy; however, all systemic antifungal drugs may best be avoided [52]. In pregnant women miconazole and clotrimazole are safe and first-line choice, while econazole must be avoided in the first trimester [19].

Dermatophyte infection recurrence

Recurrent dermatophytosis refers to the recurrence of the dermatophyte infection within a few weeks, after full completion of treatment [46]. The relapse has been noted with most types of dermatophyte infection [17]. Infection transmission from symptom-free carriers like family members and pets may need to be controlled with adjunct therapies and techniques; fomites such as hats and combs must also be treated. Patients must be encouraged to complete a full treatment cycle, as infection can be present without visible symptoms [17],[46].

Recurrence infection was observed at the sixth week in 12.5% of completely treated patients with terbinafine [56]. Mycological recurrence has been recorded in 32% of cases treated with continuous terbinafine to manage onychomycosis [57]. After a long-term follow-up of onychomycosis treated with systemic terbinafine and itraconazole, researchers suggested that itraconazole therapy is more likely to produce mycological recurrence compared with terbinafine therapy [58].

Chronic or recurrence infection may be occurred due to the deposition of dermatophytes in the deep-seated lesions of the skin [59]. T. rubrum and Trichophyton verrucosum were implicated in forming deep‐seated hyphae in a patient treated with immunosuppressant drugs for non‐Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Spores were found in skin biopsy specimens [60].

Deep dermatophytosis is a severe and sometimes life-threatening fungal infection caused by dermatophyte. Deep dermatophytosis in 17 patients with no known immunodeficiency have been reported, four patients died, no other severe infections, fungal or otherwise, were detected in those patients [61]. Apparent distress to the patients socially, financially, and emotionally are occurred due to recurrent and chronic dermatophytosis [46].

The incomplete course of management and an inappropriate dose of antifungal drugs are considered important factors for the emergence of resistant strains and recurrence of infection that may become predominant among peoples [44]. However, recurrence of dermatophytosis is the most serious problem that should be considered after completing the curative time (within 4 weeks of stopping therapy) [17],[18]. It could be resulted from recontact with the source of infection or from failed treatment with antifungal drugs [44].

Relapse of dermatophytosis is also detected in patients after 1–4 weeks of treatment with clotrimazole cream [62]. However, factors such as depth of lesions and even socioeconomic conditions may be responsible for the recurrence of dermatophytosis infection [59],[63]. Recurrence of dermatophytosis is predominant among Indian patients with tinea pedis [64]. However, another study in India found more frequent relapse in patients with tinea cruris and tinea corporis [63].

Zoophilic nature of dermatophytes

Dermatophytosis can be developed in both humans and animals with some differences in clinical features [12],[13],[14]. The zoophilic group of dermatophytes is the most causative agents of dermatophytosis in humans and animals. Zoophilic lesion is considered more progressive than lesions caused by another dermatophyte that is transmitted from person to person without animal transmission as the anthropophilic type [65]. Otherwise, humans can become a source for infection to wild animals as noted in the laboratory or other workplaces [13].

Humans can easily get dermatophyte infection from contact with different types of animals such as cats, dogs, Guinea pigs, and rabbits [1],[66]. Small pet animals are capable of transmission of infections to humans, especially to children because animals are more association with our life recently [67].

Dermatophyte infection can be transmitted by wild animals, laboratory animals, and farm animals, sometimes it is workplace-related diseases [13]. The most frequent zoophilic dermatophytes are Microsporum canis and T. mentagrophytes [65],[68],[69],[70],[71]. Some animals may be considered a carrier of dermatophyte without showing any signs of infection that can spread to humans [13],[67].

Physiological processes are similar between fungi and humans

Production of the new antifungal drug is a challenge to the researchers due to high similarities in the cell structure of both humans and fungi, the most common antifungal agent’s target include fungal cell membrane compounds, fungal nucleic acid, and components of a fungal cell wall [22]. So, new targets must be focused by researchers by learning more about the mechanism of action of antifungal drugs and fungal pathogenesis.

Incorrect diagnosis and differentiation of dermatophyte infection

Owing to the wide range of fungal species with numerous morphological features, mycological investigation is considered so important for the diagnosis of these fungal species [72]. A lesion of tinea can be caused by a single species of dermatophyte or by many species in some cases [73]. Additionally, a single species of dermatophyte can caused different types of tinea [40]. The investigation for these fungi is very important in differentiation from other clinical skin diseases [70].

Clinical features such as itching, maceration, pain, scaling, vesicles, plaster forming, and erythematous rate are variable from mild to a moderate degree [37],[74],[75]. These signs may be confused with other diseases as contact dermatitis, bacterial folliculitis, psoriasis, and eczema. An incorrect diagnosis can be seen in suboptimal therapy, immunosuppressant persons, and inappropriate dose duration [46]. False-negative culture is considered a truly confusing matter because the infection cannot be recognized as new or relapse infections causing limitation in drug administration [22].

Few studies in vivo to test new drugs

In spite of the high prevalence of dermatophytosis, few investigations were implemented regarding dermatophyte infection as well as most consideration and studies were in-vitro investigations. Animal model in-vivo experiments can increase our information about the host immune response and the pathogenesis of dermatophyte. Also animal model is considered a promising way to evaluate modern antifungal agents against dermatophyte infections [15].

Because of lack of accurate testing outcome that correlates between in vivo and in vitro, the clinical outcome is considered a poor predictor when organisms are susceptibility testing in vitro under certain growth conditions, while they are resistant in vivo [19]. Reproduction of human pathophysiology in vitro is difficult, so investigations using animal model in-vivo experiments are necessary [76].

There are always differences between the results of in-vitro and in-vivo experiments. These differences may be related to either to the host conditions, such as immune response, site of infection, and underlying illness, the fungal characters such as fungal virulence, or the antifungal agent, such as dose, pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, and drug interaction [19].

No human vaccine is available

In spite of the fact that the prevalence of superficial mycotic infection worldwide is 20–25% of which dermatophyte are the most common agents [45], vaccines remain unavailable for humans at this moment.

Cell-mediated immune responses are important to develop resolution and protection for dermatophytosis presented by some cytokines such as gamma interferon, interleukin-12, and interleukin-2 [77],[78]. There is no correlation between antibody titer and the severity of dermatophyte infections that has been reported [77].Despite the availability of effective vaccines for certain animal species, vaccination against dermatophytosis requires improvement and further development in both animals and humans. Numerous dermatophyte virulence factors have recently been recognized; notably, secreted proteases have been involved in the invasion of the keratin network. Their precise roles in the different steps of the infectious process and immunopathogenesis are being studied, while all aspects of the host immune response against dermatophytes, including the innate response, are becoming increasingly documented [79].

Inactivated M. canis vaccine has been used to treat cats infected with dermatophytosis; it was effective and safe against infection caused by M. canis [80]. Moreover, inactivated vaccine such as ‘Funhikanifel’ was used for the vaccination of dogs and cats [81]. Inactivated fungal vaccine has been used as a successful therapy to treat infected cats with dermatophytosis by accelerating healing of the lesions [82].

The clinical investigation suggested that a vaccination for a single dermatophyte species can be followed by wide-based immunity to different skin antigens. Rabbits immunized with a single dermatophyte as M. canis is capable of developing delayed-type hypersensitivity to other antigens as T. mentagrophytes and M. gypseum. Also Guinea pigs already vaccinated with T. equinum developed protection against M. canis [83].

Strategies and future steps to resolve dermatophyte treatment problems

At present, antimicrobial resistance became common [84],[85],[86],[87]. Due to few antifungal drugs available to treat dermatophyte infections, some strategies must become the focus of attention as traditional drug modification, developing modern formulas of antifungal agents, and antifungal drug combinations to get synergic action against dermatophytosis.

Photodynamic and laser therapy are focusing attention now to treat dermatophyte infections [18],[83], this branch of treatment needs more studies regarding the optimal effective dose and duration. The natural sources considered promising branch for discovering new antifungal agents by preparing modern compounds with new drug mechanisms [31].

Due to the few antifungal drugs available to treat dermatophyte infections, some strategies must become the focus of attention as traditional drug modification, developing modern formulas of antifungal agents and antifungal drug combinations to get synergic action against dermatophytosis.

Antifungal agent resistance can be enhanced by recurrent dermatophytic infections that lead to emergence new strains resistant to traditional antifungal drugs, so preventing recurrence of infection is a fundamental step to prevent drug resistance [46]. More studies regarding topical treatment are required because topical preparations are much less costly than orally administered antifungal drugs and cause minimal adverse side effects [88],[89],[90],[91],[92] ([Figure 2]).
Figure 2 Major problems in dermatophytosis treatment.

Click here to view



  Conclusion Top


Dermatophytosis is considered a prevalent skin disease worldwide; it occurs in both humans and animals. The major challenges and problems in dermatophytosis treatment for clinicians and researchers are dermatophyte antifungal resistance, the limited number and availability of antifungal agents, high prevalence rate and revolutions of dermatophyte recently, and long duration of treatment. The side effects of antifungal agents, dermatophyte infection recurrence, zoophilic nature of dermatophyte, similar physiological processes between fungi and humans, incorrect diagnosis and differentiation of dermatophyte infection, few studies in vivo to test new drugs, and no human vaccine available are further challenges.

Learning more regarding the reasons for treatment failure is so important an issue to be studied because few researches in this branch are available at present. Discovering new drugs or modification of old ones will participate to increase the limited number of antifungal drugs. Topical therapy has the advantage of safety with very few side effects, used without laboratory monitoring, much less costly, easy to use, do not require hospital visiting, and safe in lactation. So this branch is important to be developed. Incorrect diagnosis represents a challenge in dermatophytosis treatment such as difficulty in differentiation of dermatophyte infection from other similar manifestations by clinicians, and laboratory incorrect diagnoses such as false negative results.

Human vaccine availability against dermatophytosis is demanded, especially for people with high risk of infection with dermatophytes. Vaccine therapy is a promising idea instead of a conventional limited number of antifungal drugs, so focusing on this issue is promising. Appropriate vaccines for dermatophyte infection may need a deep understanding of the basic immune mechanisms of the host.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Havlickova B, Czaika VA, Friedrich M. Epidemiological trends in skin mycoses worldwide. Mycoses 2008; 51:2–15.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Lopes G, Pinto E, Salgueiro L. Natural products: an alternative to conventional therapy for dermatophytosis?. Mycopathologia 2017; 182:143–167.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Tampieri MP. Attualità sulla diagnosi delle dermatomicosi. Parassitologia 2004; 46:183–186.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Bouchara JP, Mignon B, Chaturvedi V. Dermatophyte and dermatophytoses: a thematic overview of state of the art, and the directions for future research and developments. Mycopathologia 2017; 182:1–4.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Jafari AA, Zarrinfar H, Mirzaei F, Katiraee F. Distribution of Malassezia species in patients with pityriasisversicolor compared to healthy individuals in Yazd, Iran. Jundishapur J Microbiol 2013; 6:e6873.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Bafghi MH, Mozafari NA, Fata AM, Naseri A, Zarrinfar H. Identification of Malassezia species using PCR-RFLP molecular method in the patients with pityriasisversicolor. Sci J Kurdistan Univ Med Sci 2017; 22:85–93.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Zhan P, Liu W. The changing face of dermatophytic infections worldwide. Mycopathologia 2017; 182:77–86.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Ebrahimi M, Zarrinfar H, Naseri A, Najafzadeh MJ, Fata A, Parian M et al. Epidemiology of dermatophytosis in northeastern Iran; A subtropical region. Curr Med Mycol 2019; 5:16–21.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Nejati-Hoseini R, Zarrinfar H, Parian M, Parham S, Fata A, Rezaei-Matehkolaei A et al. Identification of dermatophytosis agents in Mashhad, Iran, by using polymerase chain reaction sequencing (PCR sequencing) method. J Isfahan Med School 2019; 37:256–262.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Martinez-Rossi NM, Peres NT, Rossi A. Antifungal resistance mechanisms in dermatophyte. Mycopathologia 2008; 166:369.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Ghannoum M. Azole resistance in dermatophyte: prevalence and mechanism of action. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 2016; 106:79–86.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Seker E, Dogan N. Isolation of dermatophyte from dogs and cats with suspected dermatophytosis in Western Turkey. Prev Vet Med 2011; 98:46–51.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Moretti A, Agnetti F, Mancianti F, Nardoni S, Righi C, Moretta I et al. epidemiological, clinical and zoonotic aspects. G Ital Dermatol Venereol 2013; 148:563–572.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Pin D. Non-dermatophyte dermatoses mimicking dermatophytoses in animals. Mycopathologia 2017; 182:113–126.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Cambier L, Heinen MP, Mignon B. Relevant animal models in dermatophyte research. Mycopathologia 2017; 182:229–240.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Ishii M, Matsumoto Y, Yamada T, Abe S, Sekimizu K. An invertebrate infection model for evaluating anti-fungal agents against dermatophytosis. Sci Rep 2017; 7:12289.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Gupta AK, Cooper EA. Update in antifungal therapy of dermatophytosis. Mycopathologia 2008; 166:353–367.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Sahni K, Singh S, Dogra S. Newer topical treatments in skin and nail dermatophyte infections. Indian Dermatol Online J 2018; 9:149.  Back to cited text no. 18
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
19.
Patel VM, Schwartz RA, Lambert WC. Topical antiviral and antifungal medications in pregnancy: a review of safety profiles. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2017; 31:1440–1446.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Manzano-Gayosso P, Mendez-Tovar LJ, Hernandez-Hernandez F, Lopez-Martinez R. Antifungal resistance: an emerging problem in Mexico. Gac Med Mex 2008; 144:23–26.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Khatri PK, Kachhawa D, Maurya V, Meena S, Bora A, Rathore L et al. Antifungal resistance pattern among dermatophyte in Western Rajasthan. Int J Curr Microbiol App Sci 2017; 6:499–509.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Scorzoni L, de Paula e Silva AC, Marcos CM, Assato PA, de Melo WC, de Oliveira HC et al. Antifungal therapy: new advances in the understanding and treatment of mycosis. Front Microbiol 2017; 8:36.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Nourizadeh N, Adabizadeh A, Zarrinfar H, Majidi M, Jafarian AH, Najafzadeh MJ. Fungal biofilms in sinonasal polyposis: the role of fungal agents is notable? J Oral Maxillofac Surg Med Pathol 2019; 31:295–298.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Soares LA, Sardi JD, Gullo FP, Pitangui ND, Scorzoni L, Leite FS et al. Anti dermatophytic therapy: prospects for the discovery of new drugs from natural products. Braz J Microbiol 2013; 44:1035–1041.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Mukherjee PK, Leidich SD, Isham N, Leitner I, Ryder NS, Ghannoum MA. Clinical Trichophyton rubrum strain exhibiting primary resistance to terbinafine. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2003; 47:82–86.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Favre B, Ghannoum MA, Ryder NS. Biochemical characterization of terbinafine-resistant Trichophyton rubrum isolates. Med Mycol 2004; 42:525–529.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Digby W, Sanna S, Hald M, Arendrup MC, Hjorth SV, Kofoed K. Darier disease complicated by terbinafine-resistant Trichophyton rubrum: a case report. Acta Derm Venereol 2017; 97:139–140.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Rotta I, Ziegelmann PK, Otuki MF, Riveros BS, Bernardo NL, Correr CJ. Efficacy of topical antifungals in the treatment of dermatophytosis: a mixed-treatment comparison meta-analysis involving 14 treatments. JAMA Dermatol 2013; 149:341–349.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Aktas AE, Yigit N, Aktas A, Gozubuyuk SG. Investigation of in vitro activity of five antifungal drugs against dermatophyte species isolated from clinical samples using the E-test method. Eurasian J Med 2014; 46:26.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Van Zuuren EJ, Fedorowicz Z, El‐Gohary M. Evidence‐based topical treatments for tinea cruris and tinea corporis: a summary of a Cochrane systematic review. Br J Dermatol 2015; 172:616–641.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Fuentefria AM, Pippi B, Dalla Lana DF, Donato KK, de Andrade SF. Antifungals discovery: an insight into new strategies to combat antifungal resistance. Lett Appl Microbiol 2018; 66:2–13.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Park BJ, Taguchi H, Kamei K, Matsuzawa T, Hyon SH, Park JC. In vitro antifungal activity of epigallocatechin 3-O-gallate against clinical isolates of dermatophyte. Yonsei Med J 2011; 52:535–538.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Khosravi RA, Shokri H, Farahnejat Z, Chalangari R, Katalin M. Antimycotic efficacy of Iranian medicinal plants towards dermatophyte obtained from patients with dermatophytosis. Chin J Nat Med 2013; 11:43–48.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Zanganeh E, Zarrinfar H, Rezaeetalab F, Fata A, Tohidi M, Najafzadeh MJ et al. Predominance of non-fumigatus Aspergillusspecies among patients suspected to pulmonary aspergillosis in a tropical and subtropical region of the Middle East. Microb Pathog 2018; 116:296–300.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
Esmailzadeh A, Zarrinfar H, Fata A, Sen T. High prevalence of candiduria due to non-albicans Candida species among diabetic patients: a matter of concern? J Clin Lab Anal 2018; 32:e22343.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.
Metin B, Heitman J. Sexual reproduction in dermatophyte. Mycopathologia 2017; 182:45–55.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.
Moriarty B, Hay R, Morris-Jones R. The diagnosis and management of tinea. BMJ 2012; 345:e4380.  Back to cited text no. 37
    
38.
Santosh HK, Jithendra K, Rao AV, Buchineni M, Pathapati RM. Clinico-mycological study of dermatophytosis-our experience. Int J Curr Microbiol App Sci 2015; 4:695–702.  Back to cited text no. 38
    
39.
Ameen M. Epidemiology of superficial fungal infections. Clin Dermatol 2010; 28:197–201.  Back to cited text no. 39
    
40.
Jena AK, Lenka RK, Sahu MC. Dermatophytosis in a tertiary care teaching hospital of Odisha: a study of 100 cases of superficial fungal skin infection. Indian J Pub Health Res Develop 2018; 9:7.  Back to cited text no. 40
    
41.
Bhagra S, Ganju SA, Kanga A, Sharma NL, Guleria RC. Mycological pattern of dermatophytosis in and around Shimla hills. Indian J Dermatol 2014; 59:268.  Back to cited text no. 41
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
42.
AL-Khikani FH. Dermatophytosis a worldwide contiguous fungal infection: growing challenge and few solutions. Biomed Biotechnol Res J 2020; 4:22-27.  Back to cited text no. 42
    
43.
Kadhim OH. The incidence of dermatophytosis in Babylon Province, Iraq. Med JBabylon 2018; 15:234–237.  Back to cited text no. 43
    
44.
Adesiji YO, Omolade FB, Aderibigbe IA, Ogungbe O, Adefioye OA, Adedokun SA et al. Prevalence of Tinea Capitis among Children in Osogbo, Nigeria, and the associated risk factors. Diseases 2019; 7:13.  Back to cited text no. 44
    
45.
Sahoo AK, Mahajan R. Management of tinea corporis, tinea cruris, and tinea pedis: a comprehensive review. Indian Dermatol Online J 2016; 7:77.  Back to cited text no. 45
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
46.
Dogra S, Uprety S. The menace of chronic and recurrent dermatophytosis in India: is the problem deeper than we perceive? Indian Dermatol Online J 2016; 7:73.  Back to cited text no. 46
    
47.
AL Khikani FH. The forgotten role of methenamine to prevent recurrent urinary tract infection: urgency for reuse 100 years after discovery. Pharma Biomed Res 2020; 6:13–16.  Back to cited text no. 47
    
48.
AL Khikani FH, Almosawey HS. Be conscious to be healthy: An initiative to prevent recurrent urinary tract infection in Iraqi women. Hamdan Med J 2020; 12:44–46.  Back to cited text no. 48
    
49.
AL-Khikani FH. Amphotericin B as antiviral drug: Possible effiacy against COVID 19. Ann Thorac Med 2020; 12:1–6.  Back to cited text no. 49
    
50.
AL Khikani FH. COVID 19 and blood type: people with which group are more vulnerable? J Med Sci Res 2020; 3:68–70.  Back to cited text no. 50
  [Full text]  
51.
Al-Khikani FH, Al-Janabi AA. Topical Amphotericin B formulas: promising new application. Int J Med Sci Curr Res 2019; 2:187–196.  Back to cited text no. 51
    
52.
Kaul S, Yadav S, Dogra S. Treatment of dermatophytosis in elderly, children, and pregnant women. Indian Dermatol Online J 2017; 8:310.  Back to cited text no. 52
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
53.
Butler DC, Heller MM, Murase JE. Safety of dermatologic medications in pregnancy and lactation: Part II. Lactation. J Am Acad Dermatol 2014; 70:417–e1.  Back to cited text no. 53
    
54.
Crawford F, Hollis S. Topical treatments for fungal infections of the skin and nails of the foot. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007; 3:76.  Back to cited text no. 54
    
55.
Hay R. Therapy of skin, hair and nail fungal infections. J Fungi 2018; 4:99.  Back to cited text no. 55
    
56.
Ortonne JP, Korting HC, Viguié‐Vallanet C, Larnier C, Savaluny E. Efficacy and safety of a new single‐dose terbinafine 1% formulation in patients with tinea pedis (athlete’s foot): a randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled study. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2006; 20:1307–1313.  Back to cited text no. 56
    
57.
Gupta AK, Cooper EA, Paquet M. Recurrences of dermatophyte toenail onychomycosis during long-term follow-up after successful treatments with mono-and combined therapy of terbinafine and itraconazole. J Cutan Med Surg 2013; 17:201–206.  Back to cited text no. 57
    
58.
Yin Z, Xu J, Luo D. A meta-analysis comparing long-term recurrences of toenail onychomycosis after successful treatment with terbinafine versus itraconazole. J Dermatol Treatment 2012; 23:449–452.  Back to cited text no. 58
    
59.
Van Cutsem J, Janssen PA. Experimental systemic dermatophytosis. J Investig Dermatol 1984; 83:26–31.  Back to cited text no. 59
    
60.
Lestringant GG, Lindley SK, Hillsdon‐Smith J, Bouix G. Deep dermatophytosis to Trichophyton rubrum and T. verrucosumin an immunosuppressed patient. Int J Dermatol 1988; 27:707–709.  Back to cited text no. 60
    
61.
Lanternier F, Pathan S, Vincent QB, Liu L, Cypowyj S, Prando C et al. Deep dermatophytosis and inherited CARD9 deficiency. N Engl J Med 2013; 369:1704–1714.  Back to cited text no. 61
    
62.
Bergstresser PR, Elewski B, Hanifin J, Lesher J, Savin R, Shupack J et al. Topical terbinafine and clotrimazole in interdigital tinea pedis: a multicenter comparison of cure and relapse rates with 1-and 4-week treatment regimens. J Am Acad Dermatol 1993; 28:648–651.  Back to cited text no. 62
    
63.
Ranganathan S, Menon T, Sentamil GS. Effect of socio-economic status on the prevalence of dermatophytosis in Madras. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol 1995; 61:16.  Back to cited text no. 63
[PUBMED]    
64.
Sharma R, Adhikari L, Sharma RL. Recurrent dermatophytosis: a rising problem in Sikkim, a Himalayan state of India. Indian J Pathol Microbiol 2017; 60:541.  Back to cited text no. 64
    
65.
Radentz WH. Fungal skin infections associated with animal contact. Am Fam Physician 1991; 43:1253–1256.  Back to cited text no. 65
    
66.
Mattei AS, Beber MA, Madrid IM. Dermatophytosis in small animals. SOJ Microbiol Infect Dis 2014; 2:1–6.  Back to cited text no. 66
    
67.
White S, Bourdeau P, Meredith A. Dermatologic problems of rabbits. Compendium 2003; 25:90–101.  Back to cited text no. 67
    
68.
Krämer A, Müller RS, Hein J. Environmental factors, clinical signs, therapy and zoonotic risk of rabbits with dermatophytosis. Tierarztl Prax Ausg K Klientiere Heimtiere 2012; 40:425–431.  Back to cited text no. 68
    
69.
Kraemer A, Mueller RS, Werckenthin C, Straubinger RK, Hein J. Dermatophyte in pet Guinea pigs and rabbits. Vet Microbiol 2012; 157:208–213.  Back to cited text no. 69
    
70.
Dey JC, Rahman MK, Rumi MA, Dutta A, Sayeed MA. Prevalence of dermatophytosis in rabbits at Saqtvh, Chittagong. Bangladesh J Dairy Vet Anim Res 2016; 3:100.  Back to cited text no. 70
    
71.
Kaur I, Chaudhary A, Singh H. Clinico-microbiological aspects of tinea corporis in North India: emergence of Trichophyton tonsurans. Int J Res ogy 2019; 5:144–149.  Back to cited text no. 71
    
72.
Tainwala R, Sharma YK. Pathogenesis of dermatophytoses. Indian J Dermatol 2011; 56:259.  Back to cited text no. 72
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
73.
Sinha S, Sardana K. Antifungal efficacy of amphotericin b against dermatophyte and its relevance in recalcitrant dermatophytoses: a commentary. Indian Dermatol Online J 2018; 9:120.  Back to cited text no. 73
    
74.
Andrews MD, Burns M. Common tinea infections in children. Am Fam Physician 2008; 77:10.  Back to cited text no. 74
    
75.
Al-Janabi AH. Dermatophytosis: causes, clinical features, signs and treatment. J Symptoms Signs 2014; 3:200–203.  Back to cited text no. 75
    
76.
Shimamura T, Kubota N, Shibuya K. Animal model of dermatophytosis. Biomed Res Int 2012; 2012:11.  Back to cited text no. 76
    
77.
Hussin Z, Smith JM. Vaccination procedures and the infectivity of dermatophyte lesions. Mycopathologia 1983; 81:71–76.  Back to cited text no. 77
    
78.
Pier AC, Hodges AB, Lauze JM, Raisbeck M. Experimental immunity to Microsporum canis and cross reactions with other dermatophyte of veterinary importance. J Med Vet Mycol 1995; 33:93–97.  Back to cited text no. 78
    
79.
Mignon B, Tabart J, Baldo A, Mathy A, Losson B, Vermout S. Immunization and dermatophyte. Curr Opin Infect Dis 2008; 21:134–140.  Back to cited text no. 79
    
80.
Kurtdede A, Ural K, Gazyagci S, Cingi CC. Usage of inactivated Microsporum canis vaccine in cats naturally infected with M. canis. Mikologia Lekarska 2007; 14:19.  Back to cited text no. 80
    
81.
Nedosekov V, Martynyuk O, Stetsiura L. Evaluation of manufacturing specification of antifungal vaccines. Eduk Tech Inform 2016; 7:158–162.  Back to cited text no. 81
    
82.
Westhoff DK, Kloes MC, Orveillon FX, Farnow D, Elbers K, Mueller RS. Treatment of feline dermatophytosis with an inactivated fungal vaccine. Open Mycol J 2010; 4:1.  Back to cited text no. 82
    
83.
Paasch U, Mock A, Grunewald S, Bodendorf MO, Kendler M, Seitz AT et al. Antifungal efficacy of lasers against dermatophyte and yeasts in vitro. Int J Hyperthermia 2013; 29:544–550.  Back to cited text no. 83
    
84.
AL-Khikani FH. Epidemiological and diagnostic studies for the surveillance of Entamoeba moshkovskii. Hamdan Med J 2020; 13:78–81.  Back to cited text no. 84
    
85.
AL-Khikani FH, almosawey HA, Hameed RM, alhussain BA, Ayit AS, Al-Ibraheemi Mk, Alsalami MM. Prevalence of Entamoeba histolytica and Giardia lamblia Associated with Infectious Diarrhea in Al-Shomally population, Babil, Iraq. Biomed Biotechnol Res J 2019; 3:245–248.  Back to cited text no. 85
    
86.
AL-Khikani FH. Surveillance 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) spreading: is a terrifying pandemic outbreak is soon? Biomed Biotechnol Res J 2020; 4:81–82.  Back to cited text no. 86
    
87.
AL Khikani FH, Abadi RM, Ayit AS. Emerging carbapenemase Klebsiella oxytoca with multidrug resistance implicated in urinary tract infection. Biomed Biotechnol Res J 2020; 4.  Back to cited text no. 87
    
88.
Almosawey HA, AL Khikani FH, Hameed RM, Abdullah YJ, Al Ibraheemi MK, Al Asadi AA. Tamoxifen from chemotherapy to antiviral drug: Possible activity against COVID 19. Biomed Biotechnol Res J 2020; 4:1–9.  Back to cited text no. 88
  [Full text]  
89.
AL Khikani FH. Pulmonary mycoses treated by topical amphotericin B. Biomed Biotechnol Res J 2020; 4.  Back to cited text no. 89
    
90.
AL-Khikani FH, Auda Ga, Ayit AS. Correlation study between urinary tract bacterial infection and some acute inflammatory responses. Biomed Biotechnol Res J 2019; 3:236–239.  Back to cited text no. 90
  [Full text]  
91.
AL-Khikani FH, Kadim BJ, Ayit AS, Abidalali MH. Evaluation Cephalosporins Resistance in Pathogenic Bacteria Isolated Clinically 2020; 31:110–119.  Back to cited text no. 91
    
92.
AL Khikani FH. Refractory fungal vaginitis treated by topical amphotericin B. J Med Sci Res 2020; 3:14–18.  Back to cited text no. 92
  [Full text]  


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2]


This article has been cited by
1 Isoflavaspidic Acid PB Extracted from Dryopteris fragrans (L.) Schott Inhibits Trichophyton rubrum Growth via Membrane Permeability Alternation and Ergosterol Biosynthesis Disruption
Zhisi Zhang, Xueping Liu, Zhibin Shen, Yanfen Chen, Cong Chen, Ying SiTu, Chunping Tang, Tao Jiang, Aqeel Ahmad
BioMed Research International. 2022; 2022: 1
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
2 Mucormycosis “Black Fungus” new challenge associated with COVID 19
FalahHasan Obayes Al-Khikani
Biomedical and Biotechnology Research Journal (BBRJ). 2021; 5(3): 275
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
3 Development of itraconazole loaded ultra-deformable transethosomes containing oleic-acid for effective treatment of dermatophytosis: Box-Behnken design, ex-vivo and in-vivo studies
Koushlesh K. Mishra, Chanchal D. Kaur, Anshita Gupta
Journal of Drug Delivery Science and Technology. 2021; : 102998
[Pubmed] | [DOI]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Conclusion
References
Article Figures

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed4578    
    Printed60    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded491    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 3    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]