In-Vitro Activity of Nano Fluconazole and Conventional Flucon-azole against Clinically Important Dermatophytes

  • Najmossadat MUSAVI BAFRUI Department of Microbiology, Faculty of Veterinary Specialized Sciences, Science and Research Branch, Islamic ‎Azad University, Tehran, Iran
  • Seyed Jamal HASHEMI HAZAVEH Mail 1. Department of Microbiology, Faculty of Veterinary Specialized Sciences, Science and Research Branch, Islamic ‎Azad University, Tehran, Iran 2. Department of Medical Parasitology and Mycology, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences‎‎, Tehran, Iran
  • Mansour BAYAT Department of Microbiology, Faculty of Veterinary Specialized Sciences, Science and Research Branch, Islamic ‎Azad University, Tehran, Iran
Dermatophyte, Minimum inhibitory concentration, Fluconazole, Nano-particle



Background: Dermatophytosis is one of the most common fungal infections in humans. Antifungals such as fluconazole are effectively used for treating dermatophytosis; however, drug resistance was observed in many cases. Therefore, a newer treatment strategy is essential.

Methods: This study (Conducted in the Laboratory of the School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran in 2018) evaluated the antifungal susceptibility of nano fluconazole compared to conventional fluconazole on dermatophyte isolates using CLSI M38-A2guidelines. Dermatophyte species isolated from clinical cases of dermatophytosis were identified using PCR sequencing techniques. Zeta potential and size of the nano particles containing fluconazole were measured; scanning electron microscope (SEM) was used to determine nano particle structure.

Results: The size of liposomal fluconazole obtained was 88.9  12.14 nm with –20.12  3.8 mV for zeta potential. The encapsulation rate for fluconazole was 75.1  4.2%. MIC50 for the three tested species was 32, 16, and 8 μg/ml for Trichophyton interdigitale, T. rubrum, and Epidermophyton floccosum isolates, respectively. The corresponding values for nano fluconazole were 8 μg/ml for the three tested species.

Conclusion: MIC value for nano-fluconazole was lower than conventional fluconazole in all dermatophytes species tested; therefore, nano-fluconazole could inhibit the growth of dermatophytes better than fluconazole at a lower concentration of the drug.


1. Merz WG, Hay RJ (2005). Topley and Wilson's Microbiology and Microbial Infections: Medical Micology: Hodder Arnold.
2. Heidrich D, Garcia MR, Ottonelli Stopiglia CD, et al (2015) . A 16-year retrospective study in a metropolitan area in southern Brazil. J Infect Dev Countr, 9 (8):865-71.
3. Farokhipor S, Ghiasian SA, Nazeri H, et al (2018). Characterizing the clinical isolates of dermatophytes in Hamadan city, Central west of Iran, using PCR-RLFP method. Journal de Mycologie Medicale, 28 (1):101-105.
4. Gupta AK, Cooper EA (2008). Update in antifungal therapy of dermatophytosis. Mycopathologia, 166 (5-6):353-67.
5. Rezaei-Matehkolaei A, Khodavaisy S, Alshahni MM, et al (2018).In-vitro antifungal activity of novel triazole efinaconazole and five comparators against dermatophyte isolates. Antimicrob Agents Chemother, 62 (5):e02423-17.
6. Parsameher N, Rezaei S, Khodavaisy S, et al (2017). Effect of biogenic selenium nanoparticles on ERG11 and CDR1 gene expression in both fluconazole-resistant and-susceptible Candida albicans isolates.Curr Med Mycol, 3 (3):16-20.
7. Sarrafha MR, Hashemi SJ, Rezaei S, et al (2018). In vitro Evaluation of the Effects of Fluconazole and Nano-Fluconazole on Aspergillus flavus and A. fumigatus Isolates. Archive of SID Jundishapur J Microbiol, 11 (6):e57875.
8. Gupta AK, Cooper EA (2008). Dermatophytosis (Tinea) and other superficial fungal infections. Diagnosis and treatment of human mycoses, 355-381.
9. Innis MA, Celfand DH, Sninsky JJ, et al (2012). PCR protocols: a guide to methods and applications. Academic Press.
10. Ola H, Yahiya SA, El-Gazayerly ON (2010). Effect of formulation design and freeze-drying on properties of fluconazole multilamellar liposomes. Saudi Pharm J, 18 (4):217-24.
11. John H (2008). Reference method for broth dilution antifungal susceptibility testing of filamentous fungi, approved standard. M38-A2. Clin Lab Stand Inst, 28 (16):1-35.
12. Rafat Z, Hashemi SJ, Saboor-Yaraghi AA, et al (2019). A systematic review and meta-analysis on the epidemiology, casual agents and demographic characteristics of onychomycosis in Iran. J Mycol Med, 29 (3):265-272.
13. Ansari S, Hedayati MT, Zomorodian K, et al (2016). Molecular characterization and in-vitro antifungal susceptibility of 316 clinical isolates of dermatophytes in Iran. Mycopathologia, 181 (1-2):89-95.
14. Falahati M, Akhlaghi L, Lari AR, et al (2003). Epidemiology of dermatophytoses in an area south of Tehran, Iran. Mycopathologia, 156 (4):279-87.
15. Moghimipour E, Handali S (2013). Liposomes as drug delivery systems: properties and applications. Res J Pharm Biol Chem Sci, 4 (1):169-85.
16. Takeuchi H, Sugihara H (2010). Absorption of calcitonin in oral and pulmonary administration with polymer-coated liposomes. Yakugaku Zasshi, 130 (9):1135-42.
17. Samnani A, Shahwal V, Bhowmick M, et al (2012). Design and evaluation of ultradeformable soft elastic nano vesicle ethosomes for dermal delivery. nternational Journal of Biomedical and Advance Research, 3 (02):111-7.
18. Ghadiri M, Fatemi S, Vatanara A, et al (2012). Loading hydrophilic drug in solid lipid media as nanoparticles: statistical modeling of entrapment efficiency and particle size. International Journal of Pharmaceutics, 424 (1-2):128-37.
19. Patravale V, Ambarkhane A (2003). Study of solid lipid nanoparticles with respect to particle size distribution and drug loading. Pharmazie, 58 (6):392-5.
20. Gupta M, Tiwari S, Vyas SP (2013). Influence of various lipid core on characteristics of SLNs designed for topical delivery of fluconazole against cutaneous candidiasis. Pharm Dev Technol, 18 (3):550-9.
21. Asadi M, Hamishehkar H, Hashemi SJ (2017). Evaluation of antifungal effects of nanoliposomal fluconazole against Fluconazole susceptible and resistant Candida species isolated from patients in vitro and comparison with common fluconazole. 11th International Symposium on Antimicrobial Agents and Resistance (ISAAR)/3rd International Interscience Conference on Infection and Chemotherapy (ICIC).
22. Baghi N, Shokohi T, Badali H, et al (2016). In-vitro activity of new azoles luliconazole and lanoconazole compared with ten other antifungal drugs against clinical dermatophyte isolates. Med Mycol, 54 (7):757-63.
23. Deng SW, Ansari S, Ilkit M, et al (2017). In vitro antifungal susceptibility profiles of 12 antifungal drugs against 55 Trichophyton schoenleinii isolates from tinea capitis favosa patients in Iran, Turkey, and China. Antimicrob Agents Chemother, 61:e01753-16.
How to Cite
MUSAVI BAFRUI N, HASHEMI HAZAVEH SJ, BAYAT M. In-Vitro Activity of Nano Fluconazole and Conventional Flucon-azole against Clinically Important Dermatophytes. Iran J Public Health. 49(10):1970-1976.
Original Article(s)