The cumulative MIC percentage curves of the six antifungal agents for dermatophytes are shown in Figure 1. For two major causes of dermatomycoses, T. rubrum and T. mentagrophytes, MIC ranges of non-azole agents were narrower than those of azole agents. The MICs of total dermatophytes showed the same tendency (solid line). Unexpectedly, there were marked differences between T. rubrum and T. mentagrophytes in the MIC ranges of ketoconazole

and bifonazole. Table 4 presents a summary of the FIC indexes of 27 clinical dermatophyte isolates. Synergistic interactions were observed in 7 of 27 strains with FIC indexes of ≤0.5, additive interactions in 16 isolates with FIC indexes >0.5 ≤ 1 and four isolates had FIC indexes of VX-770 manufacturer 2 (no interaction). In total, the combination of amorolfine and itraconazole had synergistic or additive effects in 23 clinical isolates (85%), and no antagonistic effects were detected. In the present study, we observed differences between T. rubrum and T. mentagrophytes in the MIC ranges of azole agents (ketoconazole and bifonazole),

T. rubrum being more sensitive than T. mentagrophytes to these azoles (Fig. 1). Previously, Barros et al. reported that there were no significant differences between T. rubrum and T. mentagrophytes in the efficacies of any of the drugs they tested (fluconazole, itraconazole, griseofulvin and terbinafine) [26]. Santos et al. also reported no significant differences between MIC values of various antifungals

(fluconazole, itraconazole, griseofulvin, terbinafine, ketoconazole and cyclopiroxamine) in T. rubrum and T. mentagrophytes [9].That our results Ceritinib molecular weight do not match those previously reported indicates that antifungal susceptibility may differ among populations; further studies of MIC values are therefore required even in these major dermatophytes. The MIC ranges of the non-azole agents amorolfine, terbinafine and butenafine against Trichophyton Selleck Vorinostat spp. were relatively narrow compared to those of azole agents (Fig. 1; Table 2). One possible explanation for this finding concerns the mechanisms of these drugs. Each azole inhibits one pathway of the ergosterol constructional system, whereas the morpholine agents act on two enzymes involved in ergosterol construction [3]. Because the probability that variations in two enzymes will occur simultaneously is low, different positions of action may result in non-azoles such as amorolfine having more stable antifungal effects than azoles. Minimum inhibitory concentrations varied widely among non-dermatophyte strains (Table 3). In particular, all antifungal agents showed high MICs in Fusarium spp. The variation of susceptibility seen in dermatophytic and non-dermatophytic fungi indicates the necessity to identify the causative fungi to enable appropriate selection of effective antifungal drugs in each case and to avoid development of resistance [31-33].