ABSTRACT
Este trabalho relata um caso de feohifomicose subcutânea causado por Exophiala jeanselmei em um paciente que havia recebido transplante de coração e mantinha terapia com micofenolato mofetil, tracolimus e prednisone. As lesões tiveram início após trauma na perna inferior direita que evoluíram produzindo múltiplos nódulos e úlceras. Diagnóstico foi realizado através de avaliação histológica e de características macroscópicas e microscópicas da cultura das lesões da pele. O paciente fez uso de itraconazol em concentração de 200 mg/dia durante três meses, não se observando no entanto, melhora das lesões. Após este período, o paciente foi tratado com anfotericina B a uma concentração de 0,5 mg/Kg/dia totalizando 3,8 g. Após quatro meses de tratamento as lesões mostraram melhora evidente, verificando-se fechamento das fístulas e cicatrização das lesões.
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Dermatomycoses/microbiology , Exophiala , Heart Transplantation , Immunocompromised Host , Amphotericin B/therapeutic use , Antifungal Agents/therapeutic use , Dermatomycoses/drug therapy , Dermatomycoses/pathology , Immunosuppressive Agents/therapeutic use , Itraconazole/therapeutic use , Subcutaneous Tissue/microbiologyABSTRACT
A comparison of the Etest and the reference broth macrodilution susceptibility test for fluconazole, ketoconazole, itraconazole and amphotericin B was performed with 59 of Candida species isolated from the oral cavities of AIDS patients. The Etest method was performed according to the manufacturer's instructions, and the reference method was performed according to National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards document M27-A guidelines. Our data showed that there was a good correlation between the MICs obtained by the Etest and broth dilution methods. When only the MIC results at ± 2 dilutions for both methods were considered, the agreement rates were 90.4 percent for itraconazole, ketoconazole and amphotericin B and 84.6 percent for fluconazole of the C. albicans tested. In contrast, to the reference method, the Etest method classified as susceptible three fluconazole-resistant isolates and one itraconazole-resistant isolate, representing four very major errors. These results indicate that Etest could be considered useful for antifungal sensitivity evaluation of yeasts in clinical laboratories