Assessing in vitro combinations of antifungal drugs against yeasts and filamentous fungi: comparison of different drug interaction models

References

• Greco WR, Park HS, Rustum YM. Application of a new approach for the quantitation of drug synergism to the combina-tion of cis-diamminedichloroplatinum and 1-beta-D- arabinofur-anosylcytosine. Cancer Research 1990; 50: 5318–5327.
   Google Scholar
• Greco WR, Bravo G, Parsons JC. The search for synergy: a critical review from a response surface perspective. Pharmacol Rev 1995; 47: 331–385.
   Google Scholar
• Berenbaum MC. What is synergy? Pharmacol Rev 1989; 41: 93–141.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berenbaum MC. Synergy, additivism and antagonism in immu-nosuppression. A critical review. Clin Exper Immunol 1977; 28: 1–18.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Polak A. The past, present and future of antimycotic combination therapy. Mycoses 1999; 42: 355–370.
   Google Scholar
• Elliopoulos GM. Antimicrobial combinations. In: Lorian V (ed.). Antibiotics in Laboratory Medicine. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1993: 432–492.
   Google Scholar
• Hindler J. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing. In: Isenberg HD (ed.). Clinical Microbiology Procedures Handbook. Washington, DC: ASM Press, 1995: 51811–151820.
   Google Scholar
• Te Dorsthorst DT, Verweij PE, Meis JF, Punt NC, Mouton JW. Comparison of fractional inhibitory concentration index with response surface modeling for characterization of in vitro inter-action of antifungals against itraconazole—susceptible and—resis-tant Aspergillus fumigatus isolates. Ant imicrob Agents Chemother 2002; 46: 702–707.
   Google Scholar
• Suhnel J. Zero interaction response surfaces, interaction functions and difference response surfaces for combinations of biologically active agents. Arzneimittelforschung 1992; 42: 1251–1258.
   Google Scholar
• Solana RP, Chinchilli VM, Carter WH Jr, Wilson JD, Carchman RA. The evaluation of biological interactions using response surface methodology. Cell Biol Toxicol 1987; 3: 263–277.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carter WH Jr, Wampler GL. Review of the application of response surface methodology in the combination therapy of cancer. Cancer Treat Rep 1986; 70: 133–140.
   Google Scholar
• Meletiadis J, Meis JFGM, Mouton JW, Verweij PE. Methodolo-gical issues related to drug interaction modelling for filamentous fungi. Rev Med Microbiol 2002; 13: 101–117.
   Google Scholar
• Prichard MN, Prichard LE, Baguley WA, Nassiri MR, Shipman C Jr. Three-dimensional analysis of the synergistic cytotoxicity of ganciclovir and zidovudine. Ant imicrob Agents Chemother 1991; 35: 1060–1065.
   Google Scholar
• Prichard MN, Prichard LE, Shipman C Jr. Strategic design and three-dimensional analysis of antiviral drug combinations. Anti-microb Agents Chemother 1993; 37: 540–545.
   Google Scholar
• Drusano GL, D'Argenio DZ, Symonds W, et al. Nucleoside analog 1592U89 and human immunodeficiency virus protease inhibitor 141W94 are synergistic in vitro. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1998; 42: 2153–2159.
   Google Scholar
• Drewinko B, Green C, Loo TL. Combination chemotherapy in vitro with cis—dichlorodiammineplatinum(II). Cancer Treat Rep 1976; 60: 1619–1625.
   Google Scholar
• Meletiadis J, Mouton JW, Meis JF, Verweij PE. In vitro drug interaction modeling of combinations of azoles with terbinafine against clinical Scedosporium prolificans isolates. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2003; 47: 106–117.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Te Dorsthorst DT, Verweij PE, Meletiadis J, et al. In vitro interaction of flucytosine combined with amphotericin B or fluconazole against thirty-five yeast isolates determined by both the fractional inhibitory concentration index and the response surface approach. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2002; 46: 2982–2989.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prichard MN, Shipman C Jr. A three-dimensional model to analyze drug—drug interactions. Antiviral Res 1990; 14: 181–205.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Finney DJ. Probit Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1952: 122–159.
   Google Scholar
• Rex JH, Pfaller MA, Rinaldi MG, Polak A, Galgiani JN. Antifungal susceptibility testing. Clin Microbiol Rev 1993; 6: 367–381.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rex JH, Pfaller MA, Walsh TJ, et al. Antifungal susceptibility testing: practical aspects and current challenges. Clin Microbiol Rev 2001; 14: 643–658.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lorian V. Antibiotics in Laboratory Medicine. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1991.
   Google Scholar
• White RL, Burgess DS, Manduru M, Bosso JA. Comparison of three different in vitro methods of detecting synergy: time—kill, checkerboard, and E test. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1996; 40: 1914–1918.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walsh TJ, Peter J, McGough DA, Fothergill AW, Rinaldi MG, Pizzo PA. Activities of amphotericin B and antifungal azoles alone and in combination against Pseudallescheria boydii. Anti-microb Agents Chemother 1995; 39: 1361–1364.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nguyen MH, Barchiesi F, McGough DA, Yu VL, Rinaldi MG. In vitro evaluation of combination of fluconazole and flucytosine against Cryptococcus neoformans var. neoformans. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1995; 39: 1691–1695.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Norden CW, Wentzel H, Keleti E. Comparison of techniques for measurement of in vitro antibiotic synergism. J Infect Dis 1979; 140: 629–633.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berenbaum MC. Correlations between methods for measurement of synergy. J Infect Dis 1980; 142: 476–480.
   Google Scholar
• Odds FC. Interactions among amphotericin B, 5-fluorocytosine, ketoconazole, and miconazole against pathogenic fungi in vitro. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1982; 22: 763–770.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Barchiesi F, Falconi Di Francesco L, Scalise G. In vitro activities of terbinafine in combination with fluconazole and itraconazole against isolates of Candida albicans with reduced susceptibility to azoles. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1997; 41: 1812–1814.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Atherton FR, Hall MJ, Hassall CH, et al. Antibacterial proper-ties of alafosfalin combined with cephalexin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1981; 20: 470–476.
   Google Scholar
• Berenbaum MC. Minor synergy and antagonism may be clinically important. J Antimicrob Chemother 1987; 19: 271–273.
   Google Scholar
• Hamilton-Miller JM. Rationalization of terminology and meth-odology in the study of antibiotic interaction. J Antimicrob Chemother 1985; 15: 655–658.
   Google Scholar
• Patick AK, Boritzki TJ, Bloom LA. Activities of the human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) protease inhibitor nelfi-navir mesylate in combination with reverse transcriptase and protease inhibitors against acute HIV-1 infection in vitro. Anti-microb Agents Chemother 1997; 41: 2159–2164.
   Google Scholar
• Snyder S, D'Argenio DZ, Weislow 0, Bilello JA, Drusano GL. The triple combination indinavir—zidovudine—lamivudine is highly synergistic. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2000; 44: 1051–1058.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suhnel J. Re: W. R. Greco et al. Application of a new approach for the quantitation of drug synergism to the combination of cis—diamminedichloroplatinum and 1-beta-D-arabinofuranosylcyto-sine. Cancer Res 1990; 50: 5318-5327. Cancer Res 1992; 52: 4560–4561 (discussion 4561-4565).
   Google Scholar
• Henry KW, Cruz MC, Katiyar SK, Edlind TD. Antagonism of azole activity against Candida albicans following induction of multidrug resistance genes by selected antimicrobial agents. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1999; 43: 1968–1974.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kontoyiannis DP, Lewis RE, Sagar N, May G, Prince RA, Rolston KY. Itraconazole—amphotericin B antagonism in Asper-gillus fumigatus: an E-test-based strategy. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2000; 44: 2915–2918.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maesaki S, Kohno S, Kaku M, Koga H, Hara K. Effects of antifungal agent combinations administered simultaneously and sequentially against Aspergillus fumigatus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1994; 38: 2843–2845.
   Google Scholar
• Afeltra J, Dannaoui E, Meis JF, Rodriguez-Tudela JL, Verweij PE. In vitro synergistic interaction between amphotericin B and pentamidine against Scedosporium prolificans. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2002; 46: 3323–3326.
   Google Scholar
• D'Argenio DZ. Incorporating prior parameter uncertainty in the design of sampling schedules for pharmacokinetic parameter estimation experiments. Math Biosci 1990; 99: 105–118.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drusano GL, D'Argenio DZ, Preston SL, et al. Use of drug effect interaction modeling with Monte Carlo simulation to examine the impact of dosing interval on the projected antiviral activity of the combination of abacavir and amprenavir. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2000; 44: 1655–1659.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levasseur LM, Greco WR, Rustum YM, Slocum HK. Combined action of paclitaxel and cisplatin against wildtype and resistant human ovarian carcinoma cells. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 1997; 40: 495–505.
   Google Scholar