SynthesisMycoses2026
The Global Antifungal Susceptibility Epidemiology of Trichophyton indotineae Indicating Voriconazole as an Alternative Therapy for Recalcitrant Dermatophytosis.
Synthesis in Mycoses, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe emergence of Trichophyton indotineae as a multidrug-resistant dermatophyte has challenged conventional therapeutic approaches for dermatophytosis, leading to a significant therapeutic dilemma. The absence of formal epidemiological cutoff values (ECVs) under the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) framework has led to inconsistent interpretation of antifungal susceptibility testing (AFST) data, highlighting the urgent need for standardised susceptibility interpretation criteria and effective therapeutic strategies.
objectivesThis study aimed to (1) establish CLSI-based estimated tentative ECVs (ET-ECVs) to facilitate reliable minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) interpretation; (2) analyse resistance rates of T. indotineae to terbinafine, itraconazole and voriconazole using a large-scale global dataset and (3) explore and identify effective therapeutic options following first-line treatment failure.
methodsThis systematic review compiled global susceptibility data for T. indotineae through comprehensive literature searches, including only studies that performed CLSI- or European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST)-standardised AFST. Furthermore, the clinical efficacy of voriconazole was specifically evaluated by summarising and analysing reported treatment cases.
resultsA total of 67 studies from 14 countries, comprising 981 isolates, were included. The proposed CLSI ET-ECVs for terbinafine, itraconazole and voriconazole were 0.125, 0.25 and 1 mg/L, respectively, showing full alignment with EUCAST tentative epidemiological cutoff values (TECOFFs). Integrated resistance rates were 77.6% for terbinafine, 17.0% for itraconazole and 1.4% for voriconazole. Cross-resistance analysis revealed that terbinafine resistance predominated, with 14.3% of isolates co-resistant to itraconazole. In vitro susceptibility data demonstrated high activity of voriconazole and clinical case summaries further confirmed its favourable therapeutic efficacy, with complete remission reported in all evaluated cases.
conclusionThis study defined the CLSI ET-ECVs for interpreting T. indotineae MICs, highlighted the resistance burden to first-line agents and provided in vitro evidence supporting further evaluation of voriconazole as a potential effective alternative therapy. These findings may provide critical warnings regarding the high-resistance landscape and help guide antifungal susceptibility interpretation for this emerging multidrug-resistant pathogen.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.