LETTER
Sarocladium kiliense, formerly known as Acremonium kiliense (1), is a ubiquitous soil saprophyte commonly found in the environment and occasionally infecting humans (2). Its pathogenicity in immunocompetent patients is low and usually is related to inoculation of the fungus via a penetrating injury that often leads to a granuloma formation. However, the presence of underlying immunological disorders can predispose to the development of a usually fatal systemic infection (3). The optimal treatment for these infections is unknown; however, amphotericin B (AMB) seems to be the most efficacious drug, although therapeutic failure has also been reported (3, 4). In addition, this drug shows important side effects that are commonly incompatible with use by patients in poor health. The therapeutic data available are based on a few clinical cases where the etiologic agent was identified only at the genus level or misidentified (5). Antifungal in vitro studies have shown that S. kiliense is resistant to almost all antifungal drugs (2, 6). In addition, recent murine studies have demonstrated that all of the therapies tested against this fungus, i.e., voriconazole (VRC), posaconazole (PSC), AMB, and anidulafungin (AFG), showed very poor efficacy (7). Regarding that, it is crucial to explore new therapeutic strategies for the treatment of severe invasive infections caused by S. kiliense. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the in vitro activity of drug combinations against a set of 12 S. kiliense strains from clinical sources previously identified by sequencing of the internal transcribed spacer region of the rRNA gene (2). We determined the individual MICs (MIC-0) of azoles, AMB, and terbinafine (TRB) and the minimal effective concentrations (MECs) of AFG by using the CLSI methodology for filamentous fungi (8). Drug interaction was evaluated in a checkerboard microdilution design based on the CLSI method (9). The combined effects were analyzed by summation of the fractional concentration indexes (FICis). Only for combinations of AFG and azoles, two criteria were used, i.e., the MEC of AFG and the MIC-0 of azoles (criterion A) and the MEC of AFG and the MIC-2 (∼50% reduction in turbidity compared to the growth control) of azoles (criterion B) (10–12). Studies were performed in duplicate, and the final results were expressed as the means of these replicates. The FICi was used to classify drug interactions, which were defined as synergistic when the FICi was ≤0.5, as antagonistic when the FICi was >4.0, and absent when the FICi was >0.5 or ≤4 (12).
Table 1 shows the interactions of different combinations. In general, when using criterion A, most of the combinations showed an indifferent effect. Synergism of PSC-TRB was observed in one strain (8.3%) and antagonism of AMB-PSC was observed in two strains (16.6%). When FICis were calculated by using criterion B, AFG-VRC synergism was detected in three strains (25%) and PSC-AFG antagonism was also detected in three strains (16.6%).
TABLE 1.
Interaction showed by antifungal drug combinations against 12 clinical isolates of S. kiliense
| Antifungal combination | FICia,b | No. (%) of strains by criterion Ac |
FICia,b | No. (%) of strains by criterion Bd |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Synergism | Indifference | Antagonism | Synergism | Indifference | Antagonism | |||
| AMB-AFG | 1.43 | 0 (0) | 12 (100) | 0 (0) | NDe | ND | ND | ND |
| AMB-PSC | 2.08 | 0 (0) | 10 (83.3) | 2 (16.6) | ND | ND | ND | ND |
| AMB-VRC | 2.00 | 0 (0) | 12 (100) | 0 (0) | ND | ND | ND | ND |
| VRC-AFG | 1.26 | 0 (0) | 12 (100) | 0 (0) | 0.90 | 3 (25) | 9 (75) | 0 (0) |
| VRC-TRB | 1.43 | 0 (0) | 12 (100) | 0 (0) | ND | ND | ND | ND |
| PSC-AFG | 3.27 | 0 (0) | 9 (75) | 3 (25) | 3.04 | 0 (0) | 9 (75) | 3 (25) |
| PSC-TRB | 2.29 | 1 (8.3) | 11 (91.6) | 0 (0) | ND | ND | ND | ND |
FICi of ≤0.5, synergism; FICi of >0.5 to ≤4, indifference; FICi of >4, antagonism.
Mean FICi determined for 12 S. kiliense isolates.
Criterion A: the MEC of AFG and the MIC-0 of azoles AMB and TRB were calculated.
Criterion B: the MEC of AFG and the MIC-2 of azoles were calculated.
ND, not determined.
Although some of our results showed that the interactions between azoles and echinocandins depend on the endpoint used, the combination of AFG and VRC is promising; however, further experiments evaluating the in vivo efficacy of this antifungal combination are warranted in order to provide new therapeutic alternatives for the treatment of infections with this resistant pathogen.
Footnotes
Published ahead of print 18 November 2013
REFERENCES
- 1.Summerbell RC, Gueidan C, Schroers HJ, de Hoog GS, Starink M, Rosete YA, Guarro J, Scott JA. 2011. Acremonium phylogenetic overview and revision of Gliomastix, Sarocladium, and Trichothecium. Stud. Mycol. 68:139–162. 10.3114/sim.2011.68.06 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Perdomo H, Sutton DA, García D, Fothergill AW, Cano J, Gené Summerbell, JRC. Rinaldi MG, Guarro J. 2011. Spectrum of clinically relevant Acremonium species in the United States. J. Clin. Microbiol. 49:243–256. 10.1128/JCM.00793-10 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Khan Z, Al-Obaid K, Ahmad S, Ghani AA, Joseph L, Chandy R. 2011. Acremonium kiliense: reappraisal of its clinical significance. J. Clin. Microbiol. 49:2342–2347. 10.1128/JCM.02278-10 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Mattei D, Mordini N, Lo Nigro C, Gallamini A, Osenda M, Pugno F, Viscoli C. 2003. Successful treatment of Acremonium fungemia with voriconazole. Mycoses 46:511–514. 10.1046/j.0933-7407.2003.00924.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Novicki TJ, LaFe K, Bui L, Bui U, Geise R, Marr K, Cookson BT. 2003. Genetic diversity among clinical isolates of Acremonium strictum determined during an investigation of a fatal mycosis. J. Clin. Microbiol. 41:2623–2628. 10.1128/JCM.41.6.2623-2628.2003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Guarro J, Gams W, Pujol I, Gené J. 1997. Acremonium species: new emerging fungal opportunists in vitro antifungal susceptibilities and review. Clin. Infect. Dis. 25:1222–1229. 10.1086/516098 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Fernández-Silva F, Capilla J, Mayayo E, Sutton DA, Hernández P, Guarro J. 2013. Antifungal therapies in a murine model of disseminated infection by the emerging opportunistic fungus Sarocladium (Acremonium) kiliense. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 10.1128/AAC.01484-13 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute 2008. Reference method for broth dilution antifungal susceptibility testing of filamentous fungi; approved standard—second edition. CLSI document M38-A2. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, Wayne, PA [Google Scholar]
- 9.Dannaoui E, Lortholary O, Dromer F. 2004. In vitro evaluation of double and triple combinations of antifungal drugs against Aspergillus fumigatus and Aspergillus terreus. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 48:970–978. 10.1128/AAC.48.3.970-978.2004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Calvo E, Pastor F, Salas V, Mayayo E, Guarro J. 2012. Combined therapy of voriconazole and anidulafungin in murine infections by Aspergillus flavus. Mycopathologia 173:251–257. 10.1007/s11046-011-9507-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Shalit I, Shadkchan Y, Samra Z, Osherov N. 2003. In vitro synergy of caspofungin and itraconazole against Aspergillus spp.: MIC versus minimal effective concentration end points. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 47:1416–1418. 10.1128/AAC.47.4.1416-1418.2003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Cuenca-Estrella M, Gomez-Lopez A, Garcia-Effron G, Alcazar-Fuoli L, Mellado E, Buitrago MJ, Rodriguez-Tudela JL. 2005. Combined activity in vitro of caspofungin, amphotericin B, and azole agents against itraconazole-resistant clinical isolates of Aspergillus fumigatus. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 49:1232–1235. 10.1128/AAC.49.3.1232-1235.2005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]