Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1 To recognize fusariosis disease correctly in humans, animals, and plants, epidemiological information and research should be done across all segments. + 1915 word(s) 1915 2020-11-10 07:42:29 |
2 format correct + 15 word(s) 1930 2020-11-17 04:52:24 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?


Are you sure to Delete?
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Sáenz, V.; Alvarez-Moreno, C.; Pape, P.L.; Restrepo, S.; Guarro, J.; Ramírez, A.M.C. Fusarium in Clinical Practice. Encyclopedia. Available online: (accessed on 13 April 2024).
Sáenz V, Alvarez-Moreno C, Pape PL, Restrepo S, Guarro J, Ramírez AMC. Fusarium in Clinical Practice. Encyclopedia. Available at: Accessed April 13, 2024.
Sáenz, Valeri, Carlos Alvarez-Moreno, Patrice Le Pape, Silvia Restrepo, Josep Guarro, Adriana Marcela Celis Ramírez. "Fusarium in Clinical Practice" Encyclopedia, (accessed April 13, 2024).
Sáenz, V., Alvarez-Moreno, C., Pape, P.L., Restrepo, S., Guarro, J., & Ramírez, A.M.C. (2020, November 17). Fusarium in Clinical Practice. In Encyclopedia.
Sáenz, Valeri, et al. "Fusarium in Clinical Practice." Encyclopedia. Web. 17 November, 2020.
Fusarium in Clinical Practice

In recent years, human infections by Fusarium have been rising worldwide, mostly involving immunocompromised hosts. To understand this infection clinicians must recognize the intersecting points between the patient, the environment, and the relationship among all the elements that affect fusariosis in agriculture, and human and animal diseases.

Fusarium, one health, infection

1. Introduction

One Health is a concept defined as a worldwide strategy for expanding interdisciplinary collaborations and communications in all aspects of health care for humans, animals, and the environment [1]. Fusarium has been described as a pathogen of humans, animals, and plants, a phenomenon known as trans-kingdom pathogenicity [2][3]. In recent years, human infections by Fusarium have been rising worldwide, mostly involving immunocompromised hosts [3][4]. To understand these human infections, the dynamics among hosts (human/animal), pathogens, and the environment must be explored.

In humans, these fungi cause a broad spectrum of infections, including both superficial (onychomycosis and keratitis) and disseminated diseases (particularly in hematological cancer and neutropenic patients) [5]. Fungal keratitis is not only a common cause of corneal infection in developing countries but also a significant cause of ocular morbidity and blindness [6][7].

2. Fusarium in Human Diseases

In severely immunocompromised patients, fusariosis is the second most common mold infection in humans, right after aspergillosis [8]. These fungi cause superficial (such as onychomycosis and keratitis), locally invasive, and disseminated disease.

2.1. Onychomycosis

Onychomycosis is one of the most widely recognized finger and toenail infections with an overall prevalence of 5.5% [9]. This pathology can affect the physical, functional, psychosocial, and emotional state of the patient [10]. Even though it is not a life-threatening condition, numerous significant anatomical functions of the nail may be affected, with difficulty in walking, embarrassment, and work-related challenges being the most commonly reported issues [10]. Recognized risk factors for onychomycosis are trauma, ageing, obesity, diabetes, participation in fitness activities, immunosuppression (HIV(human immunodeficiency virus), drug-induced), malignancies, sedentarism, and occlusive footwear [9][10][11]. People who have pedicure treatment are less likely to acquire onychomycosis [12].

Dermatophytes, mainly Trichophyton rubrum, are responsible for most fungal nail infections and about 30% to 40% of onychomycosis cases are caused by non dermatophyte molds (NDMs) and yeasts [9]. In South America, studies suggest that Fusarium may be the most common NDM [12][13]. Species identification has a crucial role in this disease, for example,  F. keratoplasticum and F. falciforme are the most frequent species isolated in Colombia, and some of these isolates exhibited lower azole in vitro activity [12].

Fungal production of proteases that degrade keratin may facilitate invasion [12]. In addition, histological studies have revealed the capacity of F. oxysporum to invade human nails, including the firm attachment to the nail plate and the dissemination to deep layers, causing disorganization of nail structure [14]. Also, the formation of fungal biofilms is a contributor to persistent infection, which offers advantages such as antifungal resistance, protection against host defenses, increased virulence, communication, metabolism cooperation, and differential gene expression [15][16][17]. By viewing an infected nail through a scanning electron microscope (SEM) it can be seen that this fungus is able to form a biofilm, by penetrating unassisted nail layers to cause onychomycosis. It can also be seen that the ventral surface of the human nail is more vulnerable to infection than the dorsal surface [15].

2.2. Keratitis

Corneal disease is one of the leading causes of blindness worldwide. In 2001, trauma and corneal ulceration were reported as principal causes of unilateral blindness and the global estimate varies from 1.5 to 2 million cases per year [6]. Current epidemiological information proposes that microbial keratitis might be epidemic in South, South-East, and East Asia, and may exceed 2 million cases per year worldwide [18]. Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that fungal keratitis contrasted to bacterial keratitis can be progressively destructive. On the one hand, a retrospective analysis not only found that fungal keratitis was more likely to perforate the cornea than bacterial keratitis (OR (Odds ratio) = 5.86, 95% CI (confidence interval), 1.35–20.66), but also that it leads to an irreversible change [19]. Likewise, around 15–27% of patients with fungal keratitis require surgical intervention, such as corneal transplantation, removal of ocular contents, and enucleation, as a result of a failed pharmacological treatment [20].

The requirement for prolonged and intensive treatment, resulting in negative ocular outcomes (loss of vision and/or loss of the eyeball), indicates that both the economic and medical implications are substantial [21]. In addition, a correlation between gross national income (GNI) and the etiology of microbial keratitis has been shown. Fungal keratitis is associated with countries with low GNI [22]. Moreover, there are numerous cases of fungal keratitis related to the utilization of contact lenses. Between 2004 and 2006, an outbreak of Fusarium fungal keratitis occurred in contact lens users worldwide, owing to a decrease in the disinfection capacity of contact lens solutions [23]. Clinical signs of fungal keratitis include a sudden onset of pain along with photophobia, discharge with a reduced vision, and opacity on the surface of the cornea [24].

The common fungal causative agents are Fusarium spp., Aspergillus flavus and A. fumigatus, and Candida albicans (which is less common in tropical climates) [25]Fusarium keratitis has increased over the last forty years and it is estimated that around half of all the cases of microbial keratitis in tropical countries are caused by this genus, probably on account of an increasing use of topical steroids and antibacterial agents, as well as a rise in surgical procedures, contact lens use, ocular trauma, chronic ocular surface diseases, and immunocompromised patients [26]. In Tunisia, fungal keratitis represents 83% of the cases, with F. solani being the most prevalent species (66%) [27]. In Brazil, 25% of fungal keratitis is caused by Fusarium [28], and in Mexico, F. solani was found in 37% of the patients [29]. Recent studies conducted in south India have shown that         F. keratoplasticum and F. falciforme were the most prevalent species isolated from keratomycoses and environmental settings; in fact, agricultural workers in India often become infected after a corneal injury caused by plant or soil material [30].

The interaction of pathogenic fungi with host cells is the main factor in the pathogenesis of mycotic keratitis. The human central corneal temperature (32.6 ± 0.70 °C) is suitable for the development of Fusarium [31]. Adherence of microorganisms to host cells through an assortment of adhesins is essential for the initiation of the infection [24]. Consequently, Fusarium keratitis can invade the cornea and the anterior chamber of the eye. Here, in the pupillary area, it forms a lens-iris-fungal mass which affects the normal drainage of the aqueous humor and causes an increase in the intraocular pressure, leading to fungal malignant glaucoma [24][32]. Also, Fusarium mycotoxins can suppress immunity and break down tissues. Certain cytosolic proteins and peptide toxins can destroy corneal epithelial cells [33]. Proteases play an important role in fungal keratitis because they can cause corneal ulcers [24][34]. As described in onychomycosis, the formation of biofilm is another factor that contributes to the pathogenesis of keratitis as well as antifungal resistance [35][36]. Biofilm proteomics studies in  F. falciforme have identified several proteins whose levels changed during the biofilm formation phases, as well as the enzymes involved in glycolysis/gluconeogenesis and pentose pathways. Some of the proteins involved could promote angiogenesis, adhesion/invasion, and immunomodulation [36].

2.3. Invasive Disease

Invasive fusariosis affects most patients with prolonged and profound neutropenia and/or severe T-cell immunodeficiency, acute leukemia, and hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) recipients. Besides, it is not only the most frequent clinical form of fusariosis but also the most common challenging in immunocompromised patients, accounting for approximately 70% of all cases of fusariosis in this population [37]. A retrospective analysis of 233 cases (92% of them being patients with hematologic diseases) reported that the outcome is usually poor, with a 90-day probability of survival of 43% of the patients [37].

The typical clinical onset consists of a patient with prolonged (>10 days) and profound (<100 cells/mm3) neutropenia who is persistently febrile and develops disseminated and characteristic skin lesions (papular or nodular erythematous lesions), with a positive blood culture [37][38]Fusarium solani is the most common species involved in fusariosis (50% of cases), followed by F. oxysporum (20%), and F. verticillioidis and F. moniliforme (10% each) [4].

In relation to pathogenesis, animal models of fusariosis showed that mortality was correlated with inoculum size [37]. In nonneutropenic mice, the disease was described by necrotizing abscesses with hyphae, hemorrhage, and neutrophil and macrophage infiltration [39]. Paradoxically, neutropenic mice did not exhibit an inflammatory cellular reaction and had a significantly higher fungal burden [39]. A murine model of intratracheal inoculation of F. solani was recently used to investigate its spread to different organs in immunocompetent animals within 24 h after inoculation. Results showed that a 1 × 108 conidia/animal inoculum followed a 100% death rate of immunocompetent mice in 24 h [40].

3. Fusariosis Treatment

Before reviewing any human fusariosis treatment, we must discuss a frequently forgotten issue in clinical practice: the role of the environment and fungicides in the patient response to antifungal drugs. Fungicides are chemical agents utilized for control and treatment of fungal infections in plants. They exhibit a variety of mechanisms of action, such as effects on respiration, signal transduction, mitosis cell division, membrane, and cell wall [41]. Also, azole fungicides, which include tebuconazole, propiconazole, and epoxiconazole, also called demethylation inhibitor (DMI), are the most widespread treatment in agriculture due to their low cost and broad-spectrum [42]. For example, tebuconazole is generally used to control FHB (Fusarium head blight) [43]. Tebuconazole demonstrated various effects on Fusarium culmorum (a common pathogen of cereals), including morphological changes at the ultrastructural level such as considerable thickening of the hyphal cell walls, excessive septation, the formation of the incomplete septa, extensive vacuolization, accumulation of lipid bodies, and progressing necrosis or degeneration of the hyphal cytoplasm [44]. Moreover, F. culmorum is capable of adapting to triazole pressure by overexpressing a drug resistance transporter [45].

As referenced before, the overuse of fungicides in crops and flower fields becomes imperative for the identification of Fusarium to the species level (some species have higher MIC values than others), not only from an epidemiological viewpoint but also for choosing the appropriate antifungal treatment [46].

3.1. Localized Infection

There are currently no available antifungal recommendations in accordance with Fusarium isolation. Treatment with nail lacquers and systemic treatment is usually used; unfortunately, Fusarium onychomycosis and keratitis are difficult to eradicate. Onychomycosis systemic treatment with itraconazole or terbinafine is usually effective, but relapses are very common [47] Some Fusarium strains isolated from nail samples have also demonstrated in vitro susceptibility to amphotericin B (which binds to ergosterol in the cell membrane) [12]. Additionally, treating fungal keratitis represents a challenge because of the limited and variable susceptibility of Fusarium to antifungal agents, the poor tissue penetration of topical antifungal agents, resulting in low drug bioavailability, and the absence of a routine determination of antifungal susceptibility [48]. First-line therapy for Fusarium keratitis includes a topical antifungal agent either alone or in combination with systemic antifungal medication. Natamycin (which inhibits fungal growth by binding to sterols) has been the traditional drug of choice for topical treatment; however, amphotericin B drops (1.5 mg/mL) and voriconazole have also been used [49]. A randomized trial comparing topical 5% natamycin with topical voriconazole 1% for the treatment of fungal keratitis (24.6% of which were caused by Fusarium), suggested that natamycin may be more effective in healing corneal ulcers and improving visual acuity [50].

3.2. Invasive Infection

There is a variable susceptibility of Fusarium spp. to antifungal agents. The empirical treatment for invasive fusariosis infections is either voriconazole (VRC) (which inhibits the ergosterol production by binding and inhibiting the lanosterol-14alpha-demethylase), or liposomal amphotericin B (L-AMB), surgical debridement (if conceivable), and posaconazole (which inhibits the ergosterol production by binding and inhibiting the lanosterol-14alpha-demethylase) for salvage therapy [51]. If possible, neutropenia recovery and surgical debridement could be disease management tools. Information displays a 90-day survival rate of 42% in patients treated with voriconazole and showed that combined therapy does not work better than voriconazole alone [52]. In patients with acute leukemia, L-AMB or VCR are preferred. The ending point of invasive infection greatly depends on persistent neutropenia and or corticosteroid-induced immunosuppression [53]. In vitro synergism between antifungals and antimicrobials or non-antifungal agents have been studied, and percentages of synergism were as high as 80% for amiodarone (AMD) + VRC, of 75% for moxifloxacin and AMB, and of 65% for AMD + AMB [54].


  1. One Health Initiative One Health Initiative Will Unite Human and Veterinary Medicine. Available online: (accessed on 18 February 2020).
  2. Gauthier, G.M.; Keller, N.P. Crossover fungal pathogens: The biology and pathogenesis of fungi capable of crossing kingdoms to infect plants and humans. Fungal Genet. Biol. 2013, 61, 146–157.
  3. Jain, P.K.; Gupta, V.K.; Misra, A.K.; Gaur, R.; Bajpai, V.; Issar, S. Current status of Fusarium infection in human and animal. Asian J. Anim. Vet. Adv. 2011, 6, 201–227.
  4. Moretti, M.L.; Busso-Lopes, A.F.; Tararam, C.A.; Moraes, R.; Muraosa, Y.; Mikami, Y.; Gonoi, T.; Taguchi, H.; Lyra, L.; Reichert-Lima, F.; et al. Airborne transmission of invasive fusariosis in patients with hematologic malignancies. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0196426.
  5. Garnica, M.; Nucci, M. Epidemiology of fusariosis. Curr. Fungal Infect. Rep. 2013, 7, 301–305.
  6. Whitcher, J.P.; Srinivasan, M.; Upadhyay, M.P. Corneal blindness: A global perspective. Bull. World Health Organ. 2001, 79, 214–221.
  7. Chidambaram, J.D.; Venkatesh Prajna, N.; Srikanthi, P.; Lanjewar, S.; Shah, M.; Elakkiya, S.; Lalitha, P.; Burton, M.J. Epidemiology, risk factors, and clinical outcomes in severe microbial keratitis in South India. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2018, 25, 297–305.
  8. Guarro, J. Fusariosis, a complex infection caused by a high diversity of fungal species refractory to treatment. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2013, 32, 1491–1500.
  9. Lipner, S.R.; Scher, R.K. Onychomycosis: Clinical overview and diagnosis. J. Am. Acad. Derm. 2019, 80, 835–851.
  10. Thomas, J.; Jacobson, G.A.; Narkowicz, C.K.; Peterson, G.M.; Burnet, H.; Sharpe, C. Toenail onychomycosis: An important global disease burden. J. Clin. Pharm. 2010, 35, 497–519.
  11. Eewski, B.E. Onychomycosis: Treatment, quality of life, and economic issues. Am. J. Clin. Derm. 2000, 1, 19–26.
  12. Guevara-Suarez, M.; Cano-Lira, J.F.; Cepero de García, M.C.; Sopo, L.; De Bedout, C.; Cano, L.E.; García, A.M.; Motta, A.; Amézquita, A.; Cárdenas, M.; et al. Genotyping of Fusarium Isolates from Onychomycoses in Colombia: Detection of Two New Species Within the Fusarium solani Species Complex and In Vitro Antifungal Susceptibility Testing. Mycopathologia 2016, 181, 165–174.
  13. Gupta, A.K.; Drummond-Main, C.; Cooper, E.A.; Brintnell, W.; Piraccini, B.M.; Tosti, A. Systematic review of nondermatophyte mold onychomycosis: Diagnosis, clinical types, epidemiology, and treatment. J. Am. Acad. Derm. 2012, 66, 494–502.
  14. Monod, M.; Méhul, B. Recent findings in onychomycosis and their application for appropriate treatment. J. Fungi 2019, 5, 20.
  15. Veiga, F.F.; De Castro-Hoshino, L.V.; Sato, F.; Bombassaro, A.; Vicente, V.A.; Mendes, V.; Baesso, M.L.; Negri, M.; Svidzinski, T.I.E. Fusarium oxysporum is an onychomycosis etiopathogenic agent. Future Microbiol. 2018, 13, 1745–1756.
  16. Majumdar, S.; Pal, S. Information transmission in microbial and fungal communication: From classical to quantum. J. Cell Commun. Signal. 2018, 12, 491–502.
  17. Gupta, A.K.; Daigle, D.; Carviel, J.L. The role of biofilms in onychomycosis. J. Am. Acad. Derm. 2016, 74, 1241–1246.
  18. Ung, L.; Bispo, P.J.M.; Shanbhag, S.S.; Gilmore, M.S.; Chodosh, J. The persistent dilemma of microbial keratitis: Global burden, diagnosis, and antimicrobial resistance. Surv. Ophthalmol. 2019, 64, 255–271.
  19. Wong, T.Y.; Ng, T.P.; Fong, K.S.; Tan, D.T.H. Risk factors and clinical outcomes between fungal and bacterial keratitis: A comparative study. CLAO J. 1997, 23, 275–281.
  20. Sun, S.; Lui, Q.; Han, L.; Ma, Q.; He, S.; Li, X.; Zhang, H.; Zhang, J.; Liu, X.; Wang, L. Identification and Characterization of Fusarium proliferatum, a New Species of Fungi that Cause Fungal Keratitis. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 1–9.
  21. Tuli, S. Fungal keratitis. Clin. Ophthalmol. 2011, 5, 275–279.
  22. Shah, A.; Sachdev, A.; Coggon, D.; Hossain, P. Geographic variations in microbial keratitis: An analysis of the peer-reviewed literature. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2011, 95, 762–767.
  23. Ma, S.K.E.; So, K.; Chung, P.H.; Tsang, H.F.; Chuang, S.K. A multi-country outbreak of fungal keratitis associated with a brand of contact lens solution: The Hong Kong experience. Int. J. Infect. Dis. 2009, 13, 443–448.
  24. Lakhundi, S.; Siddiqui, R.; Khan, N.A. Pathogenesis of microbial keratitis. Microb. Pathog. 2017, 104, 97–109.
  25. Thomas, P.A.; Kaliamurthy, J. Mycotic keratitis: Epidemiology, diagnosis and management. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2013, 19, 210–220.
  26. Oechsler, R.A.; Feilmeier, M.R.; Miller, D.; Shi, W.; Hofling-Lima, A.L.; Alfonso, E.C. Fusarium keratitis: Genotyping, in vitro susceptibility and clinical outcomes. Cornea 2013, 32, 667–673.
  27. Cheikhrouhou, F.; Makni, F.; Neji, S.; Trigui, A.; Sellami, H.; Trabelsi, H.; Guidara, R.; Fki, J.; Ayadi, A. Epidemiological profile of fungal keratitis in Sfax (Tunisia). J. Mycol. Med. 2014, 24, 308–312.
  28. Muller, G.; Kara-Jose, N.; Silvestre, R. Perfil epidemiológico das ceratomicoses atendidas no HC-UNICAMP. Arq. Bras. Oftalmol. 2012, 75, 247–250.
  29. Vanzzini Zago, V.; Manzano-Gayosso, P.; Hernández-Hernández, F.; Méndez-Tovar, L.J.; Gómez-Leal, A.; López Martínez, R. Queratomicosis en un centro de atención oftalmológica en la Ciudad de México. Rev. Iberoam. Micol. 2010, 27, 57–61.
  30. Homa, M.; Galgóczy, L.; Manikandan, P.; Narendran, V.; Sinka, R.; Csernetics, á.; Vágvölgyi, C.; Kredics, L.; Papp, T. South Indian Isolates of the Fusarium solani species complex from clinical and environmental samples: Identification, antifungal susceptibilities, and virulence. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 1–14.
  31. Yang, W.; Zhang, L. Association of Tear Film Stability and Corneal Surface Temperature in Pudong Patients. Curr. Eye Res. 2017, 42, 655–660.
  32. Jones, B.R. Principles in the management of oculomycosis. XXXI Edward Jackson Memorial Lecture. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 1975, 79, 719–751.
  33. Raza, S.K.; Mallet, A.I.; Howell, S.A.; Thomas, P.A. An in-vitro study of the sterol content and toxin production of Fusarium isolates from mycotic keratitis. J. Med. Microbiol. 1994, 41, 204–208.
  34. Niu, L.; Liu, X.; Ma, Z.; Yin, Y.; Sun, L.; Yang, L.; Zheng, Y. Fungal keratitis: Pathogenesis, diagnosis and prevention. Microb. Pathog. 2020, 138, 1–10.
  35. Córdova-Alcántara, I.M.; Venegas-Cortés, D.L.; Martínez-Rivera, M.Á.; Pérez, N.O.; Rodriguez-Tovar, A.V. Biofilm characterization of Fusarium solani keratitis isolate: Increased resistance to antifungals and UV light. J. Microbiol. 2019, 57, 485–497.
  36. Calvillo-Medina, R.P.; Reyes-Grajeda, J.P.; Barba-Escoto, L.; Bautista-Hernandez, L.A.; Campos-Guillén, J.; Jones, G.H.; Bautista-de Lucio, V.M. Proteome analysis of biofilm produced by a Fusarium falciforme keratitis infectious agent. Microb. Pathog. 2019, 130, 232–241.
  37. Nucci, M.; Anaissie, E. Fusarium infections in immunocompromised patients. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2007, 20, 695–704.
  38. Nucci, M.; Anaissie, E. Cutaneous Infection by Fusarium Species in Healthy and Immunocompromised Hosts: Implications for Diagnosis and Management. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2002, 35, 909–920.
  39. Legrand, C.; Anaissie, E.; Hashem, R.; Nelson, P.; Bodey, G.P.; Ro, J. Experimental fusarial hyalohyphomycosis in a murine model. J. Infect. Dis. 1991, 164, 944–948.
  40. Costa, M.I.; Vilugron Rodrigues, F.A.; Veiga, F.F.; Jarros, I.C.; Kischkel, B.; Negri, M.; Alexandrino Becker, T.C.; Svidzinski, T.I.E. Effects of intratracheal Fusarium solani inoculation in immunocompetent mice. Microb. Pathog. 2019, 128, 317–322.
  41. Yang, C.; Hamel, C.; Vujanovic, V.; Gan, Y. Fungicide: Modes of Action and Possible Impact on Nontarget Microorganisms. ISRN Ecol. 2011, 2011, 1–8.
  42. Price, C.L.; Parker, J.E.; Warrilow, A.G.; Kelly, D.E.; Kelly, S.L. Azole fungicides—understanding resistance mechanisms in agricultural fungal pathogens. Pest Manag. Sci. 2015, 71, 1054–1058.
  43. Qian, H.; Du, J.; Chi, M.; Sun, X.; Liang, W.; Huang, J.; Li, B. The Y137H mutation in the cytochrome P450 FgCYP51B protein confers reduced sensitivity to tebuconazole in Fusarium graminearum. Pest Manag. Sci. 2018, 74, 1472–1477.
  44. Kang, Z.; Huang, L.; Krieg, U.; Mauler-Machnik, A.; Buchenauer, H. Effects of tebuconazole on morphology, structure, cell wall components and trichothecene production of Fusarium culmorum in vitro. Pest Manag. Sci. 2001, 57, 491–500.
  45. Hellin, P.; King, R.; Urban, M.; Hammond-Kosack, K.E.; Legrève, A. The adaptation of Fusarium culmorum to DMI fungicides is mediated by major transcriptome modifications in response to azole fungicide, including the overexpression of a PDR transporter (FcABC1). Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 1–15.
  46. Al-Hatmi, A.; Curfs-Breuker, I.; de Hoog, G.; Meis, J.; Verweij, P. Antifungal Susceptibility Testing of Fusarium: A Practical Approach. J. Fungi 2017, 3, 19.
  47. Tosti, A.; Piraccini, B.M.; Lorenzi, S.; Iorizzo, M. Treatment of nondermatophyte mold and Candida onychomycosis. Derm. Clin. 2003, 21, 491–497.
  48. Sahay, P.; Singhal, D.; Nagpal, R.; Maharana, P.K.; Farid, M.; Gelman, R.; Sinha, R.; Agarwal, T.; Titiyal, J.S.; Sharma, N. Pharmacologic therapy of mycotic keratitis. Surv. Ophthalmol. 2019, 64, 380–400.
  49. Bunya, V.Y.; Hammersmith, K.M.; Rapuano, C.J.; Ayres, B.D.; Cohen, E.J. Topical and Oral Voriconazole in the Treatment of Fungal Keratitis. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 2007, 143, 151–153.
  50. Sharma, S.; Das, S.; Virdi, A.; Fernandes, M.; Sahu, S.K.; Koday, N.K.; Ali, M.H.; Garg, P.; Motukupally, S.R. Re-appraisal of topical 1% voriconazole and 5% natamycin in the treatment of fungal keratitis in a randomised trial. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2015, 99, 1190–1195.
  51. Lainhart, W. Fusarium spp., a Genus of Common PlantPathogens That Can Cause Devastating, Opportunistic Human Disease. Clin. Microbiol. Newsl. 2018, 40, 1–5.
  52. Lortholary, O.; Obenga, G.; Biswas, P.; Caillot, D.; Chachaty, E.; Bienvenu, A.L.; Cornet, M.; Greene, J.; Herbrecht, R.; Lacroix, C.; et al. International retrospective analysis of 73 cases of invasive fusariosis treated with voriconazole. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2010, 54, 4446–4450.
  53. Nucci, M.; Anaissie, E. How we treat invasive fungal diseases in patients with acute leukemia: The importance of an individualized approach. Blood 2014, 124, 3858–3870.
  54. Venturini, T.P.; Al-Hatmi, A.M.S.; Rossato, L.; Azevedo, M.I.; Keller, J.T.; Weiblen, C.; Santurio, J.M.; Alves, S.H. Do antibacterial and antifungal combinations have better activity against clinically relevant fusarium species? In vitro synergism. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2018, 51, 784–788.
Subjects: Microbiology; Allergy
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to : , , , , ,
View Times: 570
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 17 Nov 2020