Indifferent effect of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) combined with fluconazole against multidrug-resistant Candida auris

Document Type: Original Articles

Authors

1 Student Research Committee, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Sari, Iran

2 Invasive Fungi Research Center, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Sari, Iran

3 Department of Medical Parasitology and Mycology, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

4 Zoonoses Research Center, Research Institute for Health Development, Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences, Sanandaj, Iran

5 Students Scientific Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

6 Department of Medical Parasitology and Mycology, Faculty of Medicine, Urmia University of Medical Sciences, Urmia, Iran

7 Department of Medical Mycology, School of Medicine, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Sari, Iran

8 Pediatric Infectious Diseases Research Center, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Sari, Iran

9 Université Paris-Descartes, Faculté de Médecine, APHP, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, Unité de Parasitologie-Mycologie, Service de Microbiologie, Paris, France

10 Department of Medical Mycology, Vallabhbhai Patel Chest Institute, University of Delhi, Delhi, India

11 Department of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Canisius-Wilhelmina Hospital (CWZ), Nijmegen, The Netherlands

12 Center of Expertise in Mycology Radboudumc/CWZ, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

13 Pharmaceutical Sciences Research Center, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Sari, Iran

Abstract

Background and Purpose: Emergence and development of antifungal drug resistance in Candida species constitute a serious concern. Candida auris as an emerging multidrug-resistant fungus is the most important public health threat with high levels of mortality and morbidity. Almost all C. auris isolates are resistant to fluconazole, and there have been reports of elevated minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) to amphotericin B and echinocandins. To overcome the growing challenge of antifungal resistance, a valuable alternative option would be the use of drug combination.
Materials and Methods: The present study evaluated the in vitro combination of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), such as ibuprofen, diclofenac and aspirin with fluconazole against fluconazole-resistant C. auris in comparison to other fluconazole-resistant Candida species, including C. albicans, C. glabrata, C. parapsilosis, C. tropicalis, and C. krusei originating from patients with candidiasis.
Results: The MIC ranges of fluconazole-ibuprofen and fluconazole-diclofenac decreased from 32-256 to 32-128 and 16-256 μg/ml, respectively and remained the same for fluconazole-aspirin against C. auris. However, the combination of fluconazole with ibuprofen resulted in a synergistic effect for 5 strains, including C. albicans (n=2), C. tropicalis (n=1), C. glabrata (n=1), and C. krusei (n=1), by decreasing the MIC of fluconazole by 2-3 log2 dilutions.
Conclusion: Although the interaction of NSAIDs with fluconazole was not synergistic against fluconazole-resistant C. auris isolates, no antagonism was observed for any combinations. Therefore, combination with newer azole agents needs to be conducted.

Keywords

Main Subjects


Introduction

Fluconazole-resistance has emerged among Candida species since the beginning of the fluconazole era as a result of the selective pressure caused by prophylaxis and therapeutic management [1]. Emergence and development of antifungal drug resistance in Candida species isolates have serious concerns in terms of therapeutic failures mainly related to echinocandins and azoles resistance [2]. Candida auris has become an emerging serious public health threat [3] since the recognition of the first case from Japan in 2009 [4].

During the last ten years, the number of reported cases has drastically increased, including six outbreaks during 2013 and 2017 [5-10]. Candida auris infection has recently been reported from all continents. However, sporadic cases of C. auris have been reported from Austria, Belgium, Malaysia, the Netherlands, Norway, Russia, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates, and Iran [11-12]. Challenges in laboratory detection, unique predisposition to cause nosocomial outbreaks, and multidrug-resistant phenotypes of C. auris are the rule [13]. As a consequence of its ability to overcome antifungal therapy, C. auris continuously increases its ecological niche and resistance to environmental conditions. Accordingly, the multidrug-resistant phenotypes of C. auris may be associated with hospital-acquired infections [14-15].

Although most C. auris isolates are resistant to fluconazole and elevated the minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of amphotericin B and echinocandins have been reported, echinocandins have been the most active drugs up to now [16-18]. Therefore, to overcome the growing challenge of antifungal resistance, a valuable alternative option would be the use of drug combinations [19].

Successful combination therapy for the treatment of fungal infectious diseases can achieve broader antifungal coverage and potentially reduce acquired resistance. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), i.e., ibuprofen, diclofenac, and aspirin, show antifungal activity against Candida species alone or in combination with antifungal agents [20-25]. Antifungal activity of NSAIDs is related to the inhibition of the cyclooxygenase enzyme (COX) that leads to decreased prostaglandin levels. It seems that the suppression of oxylipins, oxygenated fatty acid metabolites derived from arachidonic acid, by NSAIDs can reduce the hyphal formation of C. albicans [20, 25].

Although the potential antifungal activities of NSAIDs against Candida species, such as the changes in prostaglandin production, reduction of extracellular polysaccharide, decrease in hyphal and biofilm formations, which may provide evidence for a combination strategy against pathogenic yeast, are known [20-25], no study has investigated the combination of NSAIDs and fluconazole against multi drug resistant C. auris. Therefore, the current study evaluated the in vitro combination of NSAIDs (i.e., ibuprofen, diclofenac, and aspirin) with fluconazole against fluconazole-resistant C. auris in comparison to other fluconazole-resistant Candida species.

Materials and Methods

Strains and identification

A set of 16 clinically important Candida species comprising, C. auris (n=6), C. albicans (n=2), C. glabrata (n=2), C. parapsilosis (n=2), C. tropicalis (n=2), and C. krusei (n=2) originating from patients with candidiasis, was used. None Candida auris strains were isolated from pediatric patients suffering from hematological malignancies under chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy. All tested isolates have been previously identified by both DNA sequencing of internal transcribed spacer (ITS-rDNA) regions and MALDI-TOF mass spectrometer assay (MALDI Biotyper OC version 3.1, Bruker Daltonics, Bremen, Germany) [26]. Isolates were sub-cultured on Sabouraud Dextrose Agar (SDA, Difco) at 30 °C to ensure purity and viability.

In vitro antifungal susceptibility testing

Fluconazole MICs were determined according to the guidelines of the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) (Table 1) [27, 28]. Candida albicans (ATCC 64124) was used as a reference strain for azole resistance with mutation in the azole target Erg11 [29].

No. Strains Country of origin MIC values (µg/ml)
Alone In combination (FICI/Interpretation)
FLZ IBR DIC ASA FLZ/IBR FLZ/DIC FLZ/ASA
1 C. auris India 128 4096 2048 2048 128/2048 (1.5/I) 128/2048 (2/I) 64/512 (0.75/I)
2 C. auris India 256 2048 8192 2048 128/1024 (1/I) 64/2048 (0.5/I) 256/1024 (1.5/I)
3 C. auris India 256 2048 2048 4096 64/2048 (1.25/I) 128/1024 (1/I) 256/1024 (1.25/I)
4 C. auris India 256 4096 8192 2048 128/2048 (1/I) 256/2048 (1.25/I) 128/1024 (1/I)
5 C. auris India 256 4096 2048 2048 128/1024 (0.75/I) 64/1024 (0.75/I) 128/512 (0.75/I)
6 C. auris Iran 32 2048 4096 1024 32/2048 (2/I) 16/2048 (1/I) 32/1024 (2/I)
7 C. albicans Iran 256 512 1024 1024 32/64 (0.25/S) 32/256 (0.375/S) 16/256 (0.3125/S)
8 C. albicans Iran 256 1024 1024 1024 16/256 (0.3125/S) 128/1024 (1.5/I) 8/128 (0.1562/S)
9 C. tropicalis Iran 64 256 2048 2048 16/32 (0.375/S) 64/1024 (1.5/I) 8/512 (0.375/S)
10 C. tropicalis Iran 16 256 512 1024 64/256 (5/A) 64/512 (5/A) 16/512 (1.5/I)
11 C. parapsilosis Iran 128 2048 2048 2048 64/1024 (1/I) 128/512 (1.25/I) 128/2048 (2/I)
12 C. parapsilosis Iran 64 1024 1024 2048 64/512 (1.5/I) 64/1024 (2/I) 32/2048 (1.5/I)
13 C. glabrata Iran 16 4096 2048 2048 16/1024 (1.25/I) 16/2048 (2/I) 16/2048 (2/I)
14 C. glabrata Iran 256 2048 4096 2048 32/256 (0.25/S) 256/2048 (1.5/I) 128/1024 (1/I)
15 C. krusei Iran 128 1024 2048 1024 16/64 (0.1875/S) 128/2048 (2/I) 128/2048 (3/I)
16 C. krusei Iran 64 1024 2048 1024 32/512 (1/I) 64/2048 (2/I) 64/1024 (2/I)
MIC: Minimum inhibitory concentrations, FICI: Fractional inhibitory concentration index, FLZ: fluconazole, IBR: ibuprofen, DIC: diclofenac, ASA: aspirin, I: Indifference, S: Synergism, A: Antagonism
Table 1.Minimum inhibitory concentrations of fluconazole and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (i.e., ibuprofen, diclofenac, and aspirin) alone and in combination against Candida auris and other fluconazole-resistant Candida species

In vitro combination testing

A checkerboard microdilution assay based on the CLSI reference technique was performed in 96-well microtiter plates to evaluate the in vitro interactions between NSAIDs (i.e., ibuprofen, diclofenac, and aspirin) and fluconazole against azole-resistant Candida species [30]. The drugs were dissolved in 100% dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), and the concentrations were within the range of 0.5 to 128 µg/ml for fluconazole (FLZ; Pfizer, Groton, CT, USA), 32 to 2048 µg/ml for ibuprofen (IBR, Sigma), and aspirin (ASA, Sigma) and 64 to 4096 µg/ml for diclofenac (DIC, Sigma). Briefly, 50 µl of each concentration of fluconazole was dispensed into the columns of 1 to 10, and 50 µl of NSAIDs (IBR or DIC or ASA) was added to the rows of A to G of 96-well microplates. The H row and column 11 contained fluconazole and NSAIDs alone, respectively. In addition, column 12 was used as the drug-free growth control. The inoculum was prepared using fresh colonies, and their density was adjusted to 1-3 × 103 CFU/ml at 530 nm wavelength to a percentage transmission within the range of 75-77% according to CLSI M27-S4 guide [26].

For each drug combination plate, 100 µl of inoculum was added to all the wells, and the plates were incubated at 35 °C for 24 h. The test was performed in duplicate on two separate days. The MICs were visually determined as the lowest concentration of drug that reduced growth (≥50% inhibition) in comparison to growth controls. For the determination of drug interactions, fractional inhibitory concentration index (FICI) was calculated as MIC drug A in combination/MIC drug A alone plus MIC drug B in combination/MIC drug B alone and interpreted as synergism (FICI≤0.5), indifference (0.5<FICI≤4), and antagonism (FICI>4) [30].

Results

Table 1 summarizes the results of the MICs of fluconazole and NSAIDs (i.e., ibuprofen, diclofenac, and aspirin) alone and in combination. The MIC ranges of the individual tested NSAIDs against C. auris isolates were 256-4096, 512-8192, and 1024-4096 µg/ml for ibuprofen, diclofenac, and aspirin, respectively. However, the MIC range of fluconazole against C. auris was 32-256 µg/ml. Based on MIC values, all tested strains were fully resistant to fluconazole, except for one strain of C. glabrata that was susceptible dose-dependent, and the MIC range of fluconazole against other non-albicans species was 16-256 µg/ml.

Checkerboard microdilution assays of C. auris showed that when fluconazole was combined with NSAIDs, the MIC ranges of fluconazole-ibuprofen and fluconazole-diclofenac decreased from 32-256 to 32-128 and 16-256 µg/ml, respectively. In addition, it remained the same for fluconazole-aspirin (Table 1) suggestive of the indifferent combinations between fluconazole with ibuprofen, diclofenac, or aspirin (FICI>0.5 to ≤4).

The most common obtained result of the checkerboard assay in this study was indifferent (i.e., 62.5%, 87.5%, and 81.25% for fluconazole-ibuprofen, fluconazole-diclofenac, and fluconazole-aspirin, respectively). However, the in vitro combination of fluconazole with ibuprofen resulted in a synergistic effect for 5 strains, including C. albicans (n=2), C. tropicalis (n=1), C. glabrata (n=1), and C. krusei (n=1), by decreasing the MIC of fluconazole by 2-3 log2 dilutions.

Synergistic interactions between fluconazole and aspirin were recorded for three strains and observed in only one instance synergism when fluconazole was combined with diclofenac. None of the analyzed data sets had FICI higher than 4, indicating that no antagonism was observed except for one C. tropicalis strain in which the combinations of fluconazole with ibuprofen and fluconazole with diclofenac showed an antagonistic effect.

Discussion

Candida auris is one of the top-ten most serious fungal pathogens to date [31]. Despite the application of antifungal therapy, management is a big challenge because C. auris is a persistent colonizer and difficult to eradicate from the hospital environment [32, 33]. Moreover, the ability to form biofilms, adherence to catheter material, and resistance to the major antifungal drugs may have contributed to its persistence and nosocomial transmission [7, 10]. Pan-resistance of C. auris has been reported with the high MICs of fluconazole (90%), echinocandins (2%), amphotericin B (8%), and voriconazole (2.3%) [16].

In addition, Khan et al. reported that 100% (56/56) of the C. auris isolates were fluconazole-resistant 73% (41/56) and 23 % (13/56) of the isolates exhibited cross-resistance to voriconazole and amphotericin B, respectively. Furthermore, 20% (11/56) of the isolates were simultaneously resistant to fluconazole, voriconazole, as well as amphotericin B, and one isolate demonstrated resistance to caspofungin and micafungin [34].

Our previous experience on the interaction of caspofungin with voriconazole and micafungin with fluconazole against multidrug-resistant C. auris revealed indifferent activities against all strains (FICI, 0.62 to 2). Nonetheless, the synergistic effects of micafungin with voriconazole were observed (FICI, 0.15 to 0.5) and no antagonism was identified for any combinations [35].

In a study carried out by Eldesouky et al., it was reported that sulfamethoxazole had the highest synergistic activity with fluconazole against both C. albicans and C. auris [36]. In this regard, the fluconazole MICs of C. auris were reduced by 8 log2 dilutions resulting in an FICI of 0.156 [37].

In our previous study, geldanamycin interacted synergistically with both fluconazole and itraconazole against C. albicans, C. glabrata, and C. parapsilosis. However these combinations were indifferent against C. auris [38]. Significant inhibitory effects of NSAIDs on the growth of Candida species, Trichosporon asahii, and Cryptococcus species have been previously reported [20].

Furthermore, there have been reports of the in vitro synergistic effect of fluconazole with ibuprofen, sodium salicylate, or propylparaben against C. albicans [21, 23]. In a study carried out by Scott et al. a synergistic interaction was observed between NSAIDs and fluconazole against azole-resistant C. albicans. Moreover, NSAIDs were able to revert the azole resistance of C. albicans at clinically relevant concentrations, in vitro [23]. In this regard, the results of the aforementioned study are in line with the findings of the present study.

In the present study, the combination of fluconazole with ibuprofen resulted in a synergistic effect against C. albicans (n=2), C. tropicalis (n=1), C. glabrata (n=1), and C. krusei (n=1). Similar to the findings of the present study, Pina-Vaz et al. demonstrated that the combination of ibuprofen with fluconazole had synergic activity in four fluconazole-resistant strains, including C. glabrata (n=2), C. albicans (n=1), and C. krusei (n=1). Furthermore, they recommended the practicability of using ibuprofen alone or in combination with azoles in the treatment of candidiasis, particularly when topically applied [21].

Conclusion

In summary, the results of the present study showed that the interaction of NSAIDs and fluconazole had a synergistic activity against azole-resistant C. albicans and C. tropicalis, but indifferent effects were observed for both resistant C. auris and C. krusei. Although the interaction of NSAIDs and fluconazole was not synergistic against resistant C. auris isolates, the combination with newer azole agents would be another option. However, the significance of these in vitro findings remains elusive and requires consideration.

References

  1. Lamoth F, Lockhart SR, Berkow EL, Calandra T. Changes in the epidemiological landscape of invasive candidiasis. J Antimicrob Chemother.. 2018; 73:i4-13.
  2. Cortegiani A, Misseri G, Chowdhary A. What’s new on emerging resistant Candida species. Intensive Care Med. 2019; 45(4):512-5.
  3. Meis JF, Chowdhary A. Candida auris: a global fungal public health threat. Lancet Infect Dis. 2018; 18(12):1298-9.
  4. Satoh K, Makimura K, Hasumi Y, Nishiyama Y, Uchida K, Yamaguchi H. Candida auris sp a novel ascomycetous yeast isolated from the external ear canal of an inpatient in a Japanese hospital. Microbiol Immunol. 2009; 53(1):41-4.
  5. Calvo B, Melo AS, Perozo-Mena A, Hernandez M, Francisco EC, Hagen F. First report of Candida auris in America: Clinical and microbiological aspects of 18 episodes of candidemia. J Infect. 2016; 73(4):369-74.
  6. Ruiz-Gaitán A, Moret AM, Tasias-Pitarch M, Aleixandre-López AI, Martínez-Morel H, Calabuig E. An outbreak due to Candida auris with prolonged colonisation and candidaemia in a tertiary care European hospital. Mycoses. 2018; 61(7):498-505.
  7. Chow NA, Gade L, Tsay SV, Forsberg K, Greenko JA, Southwick KL. Multiple introductions and subsequent transmission of multidrug-resistant Candida auris in the USA: a molecular epidemiological survey. Lancet Infect Dis. 2018; 18(12):1377-84.
  8. Araúz AB, Caceres DH, Santiago E, Armstrong P, Arosemena S, Ramos C. Isolation of Candida auris from 9 patients in Central America: importance of accurate diagnosis and susceptibility testing. Mycoses.. 2018; 61:44-7.
  9. Schelenz S, Hagen F, Rhodes JL, Abdolrasouli A, Chowdhary A, Hall A. First hospital outbreak of the globally emerging Candida auris in a European hospital. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control.. 2016; 5:35.
  10. Eyre DW, Sheppard AE, Madder H, Moir I, Moroney R, Quan TP. A Candida auris outbreak and its control in an intensive care setting. N Engl J Med. 2018; 379(14):1322-31.
  11. Saris K, Meis JF, Voss A. Candida auris. Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2018; 31(4):334-40.
  12. Abastabar M, Haghani I, Ahangarkani F, Rezai MS, Taghizadeh Armaki M, Roodgari S. Candida auris otomycosis in Iran and review of recent literature. Mycoses. 2019; 62(2):101-5.
  13. Forsberg K, Woodworth K, Walters M, Berkow EL, Jackson B, Chiller T. Candida auris: the recent emergence of a multidrug-resistant fungal pathogen. Med Mycol. 2019; 57(1):1-12.
  14. Biswal M, Rudramurthy SM, Jain N, Shamanth AS, Sharma D, Jain K. Controlling a possible outbreak of Candida auris infection: lessons learnt from multiple interventions. J Hosp Infect. 2017; 97(4):363-70.
  15. Lee WG, Shin JH, Uh Y, Kang MG, Kim SH, Park KH. First three reported cases of nosocomial fungemia caused by Candida auris. J Clin Microbiol. 2011; 49(9):3139-42.
  16. Chowdhary A, Prakash A, Sharma C, Kordalewska M, Kumar A, Sarma S. A multicenter study of antifungal susceptibility patterns among 350 Candida auris isolates (2009-17) in India: role of the ERG11 and FKS1 genes in azole and echinocandin resistance. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2018; 73(4):891-9.
  17. Escandón P, Chow NA, Caceres DH, Gade L, Berkow EL, Armstrong P. Molecular epidemiology of Candida auris in Colombia reveals a highly related, countrywide colonization with regional patterns in Amphotericin B resistance. Clin Infect Dis. 2019; 68(1):15-21.
  18. Mathur P, Hasan F, Singh PK, Malhotra R, Walia K, Chowdhary A. Five-year profile of candidaemia at an Indian trauma centre: high rates of Candida auris blood stream infections. Mycoses. 2018; 61(9):674-80.
  19. Butts A, Krysan DJ. Antifungal drug discovery: something old and something new. PLoS Pathog. 2012; 8(9):e1002870.
  20. Lan YB, Huang YZ, Qu F, Li JQ, Ma LJ, Yan J. Time course of global gene expression alterations in Candida albicans during infection of HeLa cells. Bosn J Basic Med Sci. 2017; 17(2):120-31.
  21. Pina-Vaz C, Sansonetty F, Rodrigues AG, Martinez-De-Oliveira J, Fonseca AF, Mårdh PA. Antifungal activity of ibuprofen alone and in combination with fluconazole against Candida species. J Med Microbiol. 2000; 49(9):831-40.
  22. de Quadros AU, Bini D, Pereira PA, Moroni EG, Monteiro MC. Antifungal activity of some cyclooxygenase inhibitors on Candida albicans: PGE2-dependent mechanism. Folia Microbiol. 2011; 56(4):349-52.
  23. Scott EM, Tariq VN, McCrory RM. Demonstration of synergy with fluconazole and either ibuprofen, sodium salicylate, or propylparaben against Candida albicansin vitro. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1995; 39(12):2610-4.
  24. Krol J, Nawrot U, Bartoszewicz M. Anti-candidal activity of selected analgesic drugs used alone and in combination with fluconazole, itraconazole, voriconazole, posaconazole and isavuconazole. J Mycol Med. 2018; 28(2):327-31.
  25. Yucesoy M, Oktem IM, Gulay Z. In-vitro synergistic effect of fluconazole with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents against Candida albicans strains. J Chemother. 2000; 12(5):385-9.
  26. Aslani N, Janbabaei G, Abastabar M, Meis JF, Babaeian M, Khodavaisy S. Identification of uncommon oral yeasts from cancer patients by MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry. BMC Infect Dis. 2018; 18(1):24.
  27. CLSI. Reference method for broth dilution antifungal susceptibility testing of yeast; approved standards, (M27-A3). CLSI: Wayne, PA; 2008.
  28. Pfaller MA. Antifungal drug resistance: mechanisms, epidemiology, and consequences for treatment. Am J Med. 2012; 125(1 Suppl):S3-13.
  29. Liu JY, Shi C, Wang Y, Li WJ, Zhao Y, Xiang MJ. Mechanisms of azole resistance in Candida albicans clinical isolates from Shanghai, China. Res Microbiol. 2015; 166(3):153-61.
  30. Odds FC. Synergy, antagonism, and what the chequerboard puts between them. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2003; 52(1):1.
  31. Hyde KD, Al-Hatmi AM, Andersen B, Boekhout T, Buzina W, Dawson TL. The world’s ten most feared fungi. Fungal Divers. 2018; 93(1):161-94.
  32. Chowdhary A, Voss A, Meis JF. Multidrug-resistant Candida auris: 'new kid on the block' in hospital-associated infections?. J Hosp Infect. 2016; 94(3):209-12.
  33. Chow NA, de Groot T, Badali H, Abastabar M, Chiller TM, Meis JF. Potential fifth clade of Candida auris, Iran, 2018. Emerg Infect Dis. 2019; 25(9):1780-1.
  34. Khan Z, Ahmad S, Al-Sweih N, Joseph L, Alfouzan W, Asadzadeh M. Increasing prevalence, molecular characterization and antifungal drug susceptibility of serial Candida auris isolates in Kuwait. PLoS One. 2018; 13(4):e0195743.
  35. Fakhim H, Chowdhary A, Prakash A, Vaezi A, Dannaoui E, Meis JF. In vitro interactions of echinocandins with triazoles against multidrug-resistant Candida auris. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2017; 61(11):e01056-17.
  36. Eldesouky HE, Mayhoub A, Hazbun TR, Seleem MN. Reversal of azole resistance in Candida albicans by sulfa antibacterial drugs. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2018; 62(3):e00701-17.
  37. Eldesouky HE, Li X, Abutaleb NS, Mohammad H, Seleem MN. Synergistic interactions of sulfamethoxazole and azole antifungal drugs against emerging multidrug-resistant Candida auris. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2018; 52(6):754-761.
  38. Mahmoudi S, Rezaie S, Ghazvini RD, Hashemi SJ, Badali H, Foroumadi A. In Vitro interaction of geldanamycin with triazoles and echinocandins against common and emerging Candida species. Mycopathologia.. 2019; 10:1-7.