Drug-resistant dermatophytosis has emerged as a global therapeutic challenge, underscoring the need for alternative antifungal strategies. Echinocandins, inhibitors of β-(1,3)-D-glucan synthase, demonstrate potent activity against Candida and Aspergillus but remain insufficiently characterized against dermatophytes. This study evaluated the in vitro activity of anidulafungin and caspofungin in a diverse clinical collection and examined their predicted interactions with β-(1,3)-D-glucan synthase. Antifungal susceptibility testing was performed on 105 clinical isolates, including T. indotineae, T. mentagrophytes, T. rubrum, T. tonsurans, M. canis, N. gypsea, and T. violaceum, using CLSI M38-A3 broth microdilution. Minimum effective concentrations (MECs) for echinocandins and minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) for comparator agents were determined. Molecular docking simulations were conducted to characterize echinocandin interactions with β-(1,3)-D-glucan synthase. Statistical analyses used Kruskal–Wallis and Dunn’s tests. Both echinocandins showed significantly lower MEC/MIC distributions than all comparator antifungals after adjustment for multiple comparisons (all adjusted p < 0.001). Anidulafungin was more potent than caspofungin (GM MECs: 0.011 vs. 0.022 µg/mL; p < 0.001). Against terbinafine-resistant T. indotineae, MEC50 values were 0.008 µg/mL (anidulafungin) and 0.016 µg/mL (caspofungin), markedly outperforming terbinafine (MIC50 = 4 µg/mL). Docking analyses demonstrated species- and ligand-dependent predicted interaction patterns with β-(1,3)-D-glucan synthase, providing complementary structural context for the observed in vitro susceptibility profiles. This study extends prior in vitro observations by profiling two echinocandins against diverse clinical dermatophytes, including terbinafine-resistant T. indotineae. Docking analysis provides structural context but does not establish target engagement. Further preclinical studies are needed to confirm therapeutic relevance.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Haghani et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: