Advertisement
  • Loading metrics

Madurella mycetomatis causing eumycetoma medical treatment: The challenges and prospects

Madurella mycetomatis causing eumycetoma medical treatment: The challenges and prospects

  • Lamis Y. M. Elkheir, 
  • Rayan Haroun, 
  • Magdi Awadalla Mohamed, 
  • Ahmed Hassan Fahal
PLOS
x

Introduction

Mycetoma is a WHO recognised neglected tropical disease that is a subcutaneous chronic granulomatous progressively morbid inflammatory disease [1]. It frequently affects young adults and children in remote rural areas. It most commonly affects field laborers and herdsmen who are in direct contact with the soil. Hence, the most common site of infection is the foot, and the hand ranks second. Less frequently, other parts of the body may also be infected [2].

The disease can either be caused by true fungi, so called eumycetoma, or by certain bacteria, so called actinomycetoma, and the common causative organisms are Madurella mycetomatis and Nocardia brasiliensis, respectively [3,4]. These organisms are thought to be present in the soil, thorns, or animal dunk, and they are probably implanted into the host subcutaneous tissue through a breach in the skin as a result of minor trauma [5].

Mycetoma, irrespective of the aetiological agent, presents as a slowly progressive, painless, subcutaneous swelling. Multiple secondary nodules then evolve that may suppurate and drain through multiple sinuses tracts. The sinuses usually discharge grains containing colonies of the causative organism, and they are considered as a unique characteristic of the disease (Fig 1) [6,7].

thumbnail
Fig 1. A massive eumycetoma lesion with multiple discharging sinuses and black grains.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0008307.g001

Actinomycetoma is relatively more responsive to medical treatment, which depends on the site, the severity of the disease, and the causative organisms, with a cure rate of up to 90% [8]. In contrast, treatment of eumycetoma is challenging and problematic, of which most cases do not respond to medical therapy alone and require alongside surgical intervention. In general, the treatment outcome of eumycetoma is suboptimal and unsatisfactory in many patients [9,10].

The disease then spreads to involve the skin, subcutaneous tissue, deep structures, and bone, resulting in destruction, deformity, loss of function, and, occasionally, mortality [7].

This Review highlights the currently available treatment options for eumycetoma caused by M. mycetomatis and their shortcomings, possible factors contributing to treatment failure, and prospects for achieving better treatment outcomes.

Diagnosis of eumycetoma

The appropriate treatment of mycetoma depends on precise identification of the causative agent to the species level and the disease extent. For the latter, many imaging techniques are required, and include conventional X-ray radiography, ultrasonography, computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) [1115]. Molecular techniques such as species-specific polymerase chain reaction (PCR), serodiagnosis as ELISA, and counter-immunoelectrophoresis as well as the classical grain culture and surgical biopsy histopathological examination are all needed to achieve accurate organism identification [11,1618]. These techniques are not only important for diagnosis, but they also aid in treatment follow-up and assessment of cure. However, most of these techniques are invasive, expensive, of low sensitivity and specificity, and not available in endemic regions, and, hence, there is a desperate need for developing simple tests and point of care diagnostic tools.

Treatment of eumycetoma

Despite centuries of recognition, the treatment of eumycetoma remains challenging, difficult, and disappointing. Until now, there are no definite treatment guidelines or protocols. Therefore, the treatment is based on personal experiences or a few published case reports and case series [9,10].

Currently, the treatment starts with preoperative antifungal treatment for six months, which continues postoperatively for at least six months [9,10]. Surgical intervention is usually in the form of adequate wide local excision, repeated aggressive debulking and debridement, or amputation in advanced disease. It aims to reduce the lesion size for better response to medical treatment or complete removal of the bacterial infected lesion [19]. The adjunct antifungal treatment is always necessary to localise the disease by forming a thick capsule around the lesion which facilitates the surgical excision that may reduce the recurrence rate (Fig 2) [19]. However, the literature showed some reported cases that showed clinical improvement with medical treatment only without surgical intervention [2025]. There is no report of eumycetoma spontaneous cure.

thumbnail
Fig 2. Massive postoperative recurrence after adequate itraconazole treatment for one year.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0008307.g002

Currently used drugs for eumycetoma

Various classes of antifungal drugs have been used in the treatment of eumycetoma caused M. mycetomatis over the years, and that included the azoles, amphotericin B, and terbinafine Table 1.

The toxicity and the need for hospitalization have greatly limited the use of amphotericin B for treatment of eumycetoma [26]. Liposomal amphotericin B was used in four patients at the Mycetoma Research Centre in Sudan (with a dose of 3 mg per kg) and one patient in Brazil (with a dose of 1 mg per kg). However, the clinical response was not satisfactory, and some of the patients experienced severe nephrotoxicity [10,27]. Intralesional administration of amphotericin B was reported in a case of eumycetoma caused by Madurella grisea in Brazil, and it resulted in a relatively good improvement [28]. However, in eumycetoma caused by M. mycetomatis, the lesions are usually multilobulated; hence, the even diffusion of the drug may not be possible. Furthermore, it is a painful procedure and may disseminate the infection.

The use of terbinafine was reported in a study in Senegal where patients were treated with 500 mg twice a day for 24 to 48 weeks that resulted in significant improvement of 80% of the patients [25]. Terbinafine use was also reported on a 13-year-old Senegalese boy with a dose of 750 mg per day. Nevertheless the boy passed away after 8 months of treatment [29]. The limited use of terbinafine could be attributed at least to its high cost and hepatotoxicity [30].

Generally, azoles remain the most commonly used class of antifungal drugs in the treatment of eumycetoma. Before it was banned in 2013, due to life-threatening hepatotoxicity [31], oral ketoconazole in a dose of 100 to 800 mg per day, was the treatment of choice [20,32,33]. It was then replaced by itraconazole in a daily dose of 200 to 400 mg per day [21,34]. Some newer azoles, such as voriconazole (400 to 600 mg per day) and posaconazole (800 mg per day), have also been employed in the management of some eumycetoma patients with good clinical outcomes [2224]. However, their high cost compared to itraconazole might have limited their use in poor developing countries where the disease is endemic.

Itraconazole is considered as the most commonly used azole for eumycetoma treatment [10]. However, itraconazole suffers from several inadequacies which include the following.

Suboptimal treatment outcomes and recurrence

The clinical response to itraconazole is often variable and is often associated with recurrence even after extended treatment periods before and after surgery (Fig 3). In one study, 13 patients were treated with itraconazole for 12 months in a dose of 400 mg per day for three months and then reduced to 200 mg per day for nine months; only one patient showed complete cure, nine patients showed partial response, and the rest three had stable disease. Later, one patient had a massive recurrence after partial cure [34]. In another larger prospective study, only 321 of 1,242 (25.9%) eumycetoma patients were cured [35]. Despite prolonged treatment with itraconazole before and after surgery, postoperative recurrence is quite common. Recurrence was reported in 276 of 1,013 patients (27.2%) treated by itraconazole accompanied by surgery at the MRC in Sudan [36].

Prolonged treatment duration and adverse effects

Extended treatment duration with itraconazole was shown to be an important predictor for attaining higher cure rates in eumycetoma patients [35]. Thus, eumycetoma patients usually need to endure 6 months to 3 years of treatment with itraconazole [37]. This in turn greatly affects patients’ adherence and compliance and results in high follow-up dropout rates [35]. Such prolonged treatment periods also make patients more vulnerable to serious adverse effects. Like other azoles, lengthy use of itraconazole affects liver functions, ranging from transient elevations in serum transaminases to hepatoxicity and liver failure [30].

Additionally, itraconazole has negative inotropic effects on the heart and has therefore been associated with congestive heart failure [3840]. Being an azole, itraconazole is contraindicated in pregnancy since it is embryotoxic and teratogenic in animals (Pregnancy Risk Category C) [41]. Moreover, pregnant women exposed to itraconazole were shown to have an increased risk of early fetal loss [42].

Organism viability within the grains

Even though M. mycetomatis is highly susceptible to itraconazole in vitro [43,44], grains containing viable fungi were isolated from patients who were on prolonged treatment with itraconazole [34]. Hence, itraconazole seems to only limit the extent of the infection instead of complete eradication of the M. mycetomatis’ tissue burden [45].

Drug pharmacokinetics

The pharmacokinetic profile of itraconazole is known to have considerable interpatient variability while using the same dose of the drug [46]. This erratic variation could largely be attributed to the fact that the absorption of itraconazole form the gastrointestinal tract is greatly influenced by stomach acidity and concomitant food intake [4750]. At best, the amount of itraconazole available for therapeutic activity represents only 0.11% of the ingested dose. This could be attributed to the fact that the absolute oral bioavailability of itraconazole is only 55% and, of that absorbed fraction, 99.8% is bound to plasma proteins and thus considered unavailable for therapeutic effects [5052]. Consequently, this pharmacokinetic profile of itraconazole adds unnecessary cost to the patients. Furthermore, due to high protein binding itraconazole can only reach the cerebrospinal fluid in minimal amounts [50,52], this limits its therapeutic effectiveness in cerebral eumycetoma infections.

Drug–drug interactions

Eumycetoma is a chronic medical condition and patients may develop several comorbidities during the course of their infection. This will necessitate the coadministration of drugs that might have undesirable pharmacokinetic interactions with itraconazole, at the level of absorption, distribution, metabolism, or excretion [5355]. These interactions could result in decreased or increased plasma levels of itraconazole or coadministered drugs, thus leading to reduced efficacy or increased toxicity, respectively. For instance, administration of acid neutralising (e.g., aluminium hydroxide) or suppressing (e.g. H2-antagonists as ranitidine or proton-pump inhibitors as omeprazole) drugs lead to inadequate absorption of itraconazole [5658]. Itraconazole is a potent inhibitor and also a substrate of Cytochrome P450 3A4 (CYP3A4), which is responsible for the metabolism of a broad range of drugs [59,60]. Consequently, itraconazole will increase plasma concentrations of CYP3A4 substrates, while inducers and inhibitors of CYP3A4 will decrease or increase itraconazole plasma concentrations, respectively. Therefore, levels of itraconazole and other coadministered drugs should be closely monitored to avoid subclinical concentrations or undesired toxic effects of both drugs (Table 2).

thumbnail
Table 2. Some drugs that could affect the metabolism of itraconazole or be affected by itraconazole coadministration.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0008307.t002

Combination therapy

Most invasive fungal infections are difficult to treat with antifungal monotherapy. Thus, combining antifungal drugs seems to be a promising approach to achieve synergistic effects that could improve overall efficacy and decrease the duration of treatment, toxicity, and possibly resistance [61].

Antifungal combination therapy can produce synergy via several mechanisms. One mechanism could involve the inhibition of different stages of one biochemical pathway. Such synergy could be seen in the combination of azoles and terbinafine, in which they affect the integrity of the fungal cell membrane by targeting ergosterol biosynthesis at various levels [62]. The use of such combinations has been reported for eumycetoma caused by M. mycetomatis. In India, a patient was successfully treated using a combination of itraconazole (400 mg per day) and terbinafine (250 mg per day) [63]. In another case series, two patients were treated with a combination of voriconazole (400 to 700 mg per day) or posaconazole (800 mg per day) with terbinafine (dose not specified). One patient did not respond to treatment, while the other showed very good clinical improvement [64].

Synergy could also be achieved by combining azoles with flucytosine, in which azole damage the fungal cell membrane, thus enhancing the penetration of flucytosine to its target, where it inhibits the synthesis of both DNA and RNA [62,65]. The use of posaconazole (800 mg per day) combined with flucytosine (80 mg per kg per day) was also reported to produce good clinical improvement in eumycetoma patients [64,66].

The treatment of eumycetoma caused by M. mycetomatis is often complicated by the development of bacterial coinfections, most commonly by Staphylococcus aureus [67]. Combining antibacterial drugs such as an amoxicillin–clavulanic acid (2 g per day) with the regular antifungal regimen helps in eradicating the bacterial coinfection and, hence, improving the overall clinical outcome of the patients [68]. The use of such combinations has been reported in the literature but without a clear rationale for their administration because no bacterial coinfections were described. One eumycetoma patient showed good clinical response upon treatment with a combination of intravenous trimethoprim–sulfamethoxazole and liposomal amphotericin B (doses not specified) then a combination of oral trimethoprim–sulfamethoxazole (320 mg per day) with posaconazole (800 mg per day) and ciprofloxacin (1 Gram per day) [69]. Similarly, the combination of itraconazole with trimethoprim–sulfamethoxazole (doses not specified) resulted in good improvement in two patients in Brazil. The authors suggested that sulfamethoxazole–trimethoprim might have some activity against the causative fungi [70].

Eumycetoma is usually associated with intense inflammatory reactions produced by the host tissue [71], which are proposed to play an important role in the pathogenesis of the disease [66]. Hence, combining antiinflammatory drugs with antifungal therapy could help in improving the clinical outcomes of eumycetoma patients. Addition of the nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug, diclofenac (100 mg per day), to a combination of posaconazole (800 mg per day) and flucytosine (80 mg per kg per day), resulted in complete normalisation of the clinical picture within two months of a patient who had refractory mycetoma for over 20 years [66]. In Brazil, combining oral prednisolone with antifungals and sulfamethoxazole plus trimethoprim was also reported to enhance the clinical improvement cure rates of patients without causing additional side effects [72].

Possible barriers to effective treatment

In vitro, M. mycetomatis is susceptible to various classes of antifungals, yet the clinical outcomes of these agents are unsatisfactory [44,7376]. Many co-operating factors might contribute to these poor clinical outcomes, such as:

Grains melanin

The black colour of M. mycetomatis grains is due to the fungi ability to produces two types of melanin: pyo-melanin (soluble and secreted by the fungus) and dihydroxynaphthalene (DHN)-melanin (solid, insoluble, and, usually, bound to the cell wall) Fig 4 [11]. The latter melanin was shown to reduce the in vitro efficacy of itraconazole and ketoconazole by 16- and 32-folds, respectively [77]. This was explained by the fact that DHN-melanin hinders the accessibility of these drugs to the fungal mycelia [77,78]. Cell-mediated immunity plays a major adjunct role to drugs in the control and eradication of fungal infections [79]. DHN-melanin was found to protect M. mycetomatis in vitro from the killing effects of permanganate: one of the strongest known oxidants. Hence, inside the host, this melanin may act as a scavenger for immune oxidants, such as nitric oxide produced against the fungal invasion [77]. Interestingly, fungi have been shown to increase the production of DHN-melanin when challenged with itraconazole, possibly conferring additional protection against the drug [80].

The collagen

Following prolonged treatment with itraconazole or ketoconazole, M. mycetomatis grains are usually found to be encapsulated with excessive collagen (Fig 5). This collagen accumulation was found to be associated with elevated levels of active matrix metalloproteinases-9 (MMP-9) in eumycetoma patients [81] that probably disrupts the equilibrium of the extracellular matrix (ECM) synthesis and degradation. Such dense collagen networks around the fungal lesion might localize the infection, though it has also been suggested that it might hinder drug accessibility and, hence, diminish the response to antifungal treatment [81]. Such effects of collagen on penetration have been reported in macromolecules; however, similar effects on micromolecules such as antifungal agents need further investigation [82,83].

thumbnail
Fig 5. Photomicroscopy showing M. mycetomatis grains well encapsulated with excessive collagen following treatment with itraconazole (hematoxylin–eosin X 400).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0008307.g005

The patients’ late presentation

A major problem with eumycetoma patients is the fact that they tend to present to treatment at late stages with advanced disease (the median duration of the disease at presentation is three years) [32]. This long disease duration seems to be an important predictor of poor treatment outcomes [35]. This late presentation of eumycetoma patients may be attributed to the substantial lack of health education and health facilities in rural areas where eumycetoma is endemic. Furthermore, the high coast and far away access to treatment combined with the patients’ low socioeconomic status led them to first seek other treatment alternatives, such as herbal and traditional medicine. Approximately 42.4% of eumycetoma patients have used herbal medicine during the course of their disease [84]. Herbs such as Moringa oleifera, Acacia nilotica, Citrullus colocynthis, and Cuminum cyminum were commonly used either alone or in combination with other herbs [84]. Some patients also seek traditional and religious healing techniques such as cautery, charms, amulets, hijabs, erasure (mihaya), and incantations (ruqia) (Fig 6) [85]. These alternative treatments are usually not only ineffective in treating eumycetoma but also lead to serious complications such as skin burns, necrosis, and, most importantly, secondary bacterial infections [84].

Recommendation for improving currently available treatment

As has been stated, treatment of eumycetoma suffers from several shortcomings, most importantly the limited treatment alternatives, which are associated with low cure rates and great variability in response among patients. As have been mentioned previously, combining antifungal drugs for the treatment of eumycetoma caused by M. mycetomatis have shown some promising outcomes. However, these outcomes are limited to only a few case reports [63,64,66]. That is why there is an urgent need for proper and controlled clinical studies in larger numbers of patients to determine the most effective combination of drugs, their doses, and duration of treatment. Furthermore, the outcomes of these case reports do not coincide with in vitro and in vivo findings (using M. mycetomatis-infected Galleria mellonella larvae), in which drug combinations did not result in synergy nor improved the therapeutic response [86,87]. Developing a three-dimensional (organoid) culture system for M. mycetomatis might aid in obtaining a better reflection of the host–pathogen complex biological interactions [88] and, hence, a more accurate prediction of the fungi’s response to drugs and their combinations [89].

The variable and unsatisfactory clinical response of eumycetoma patients to itraconazole could partially be attributed to its poor pharmacokinetic profile. Maintaining effective and safe serum levels of itraconazole in patients could be achieved via therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) techniques such as high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) and mass spectrometry (MS) [90]. Furthermore, enhancing the oral bioavailability of itraconazole could be a good approach to enhance its therapeutic efficacy, while reducing treatment cost. Many pharmaceutical technologies have been developed over the years to enhance the oral bioavailability of itraconazole. For example, an oral solution of itraconazole was developed via incorporating it with a cyclodextrin vehicle, which resulted in a 37% higher oral bioavailability compared to itraconazole capsule in healthy volunteers [91,92]. Furthermore, the absorption of itraconazole from this oral solution is enhanced when taken on an empty stomach [91]. Hence, using such formulations in the management of eumycetoma might improve the clinical outcome of the disease.

As have been mentioned previously, the late presentation of eumycetoma patients is a major hurdle in their treatment. Thus, implementing vigorous health education programs in mycetoma endemic areas could be a possible solution. These educational programs should also embrace the traditional healers as they are greatly trusted by the locals and could help in detecting early cases. Once enrolled in treatment, patients should be counselled on the potential drug–drug and drug–food interactions of itraconazole, so as to maximize the effectiveness of the drug and minimise its potentially toxic effects.

Eumycetoma results in serious disfigurement, scarring, and disability. Hence, patients are often stigmatized in their communities. This could lead to patients being reluctant to seek medical treatment once they notice their disease. Therefore, providing psychological support and occupational rehabilitation for these patients could improve their adherence to treatment and hence improve their treatment outcome.

Drug discovery for eumycetoma

As mentioned in the previous parts of the Review, the success rate of the currently available treatment options for eumycetoma caused by M. mycetomatis is minimal. Accordingly, there is a desperate need for finding new medicines to address the unmet clinical need in the field of eumycetoma management.

Drug discovery for eumycetoma can take place by several means. Herein, two main ways will be discussed. Firstly, the drug repurposing approach and secondly the de novo drug discovery. In this issue, the term “de novo drug discovery” represents the discovery of novel treatments through the regular drug discovery pipeline, which involves the screening of chemical compounds, followed by in vitro, in vivo testing then preclinical and clinical evaluation [93]. On the other hand, drug repurposing refers to the use of approved medication for indications other than the one that it was originally developed for [94]. Thus, drug repurposing could aid in finding novel medicines, while dramatically cutting down expenses and shortening the drug discovery process by relying on existing safety and pharmacokinetic profiles of drugs that are already in the market [94,95].

Drug repurposing for eumycetoma

Drug repurposing became an attractive approach for finding new treatments for diseases like eumycetoma because these diseases occur primarily and almost solely in poor communities. Hence, these diseases do not represent an attractive investment for pharmaceutical companies, as their profits are not considered satisfactory enough to compensate for the cost of the de novo drug discovery [96].

Among the examples of drug repurposing for eumycetoma, treatment is fosravuconazole. The starting point for the application of fosravuconazole for treating eumycetoma was ravuconazole. It is a newly developed broad-spectrum triazole that was initially developed for the treatment of Chagas disease. In vitro studies showed that ravuconazole is active against Madurella mycetomatis [74]. Nevertheless, ravuconazole is too expensive to be applied directly in the treatment of eumycetoma, a disease that is almost restricted to underprivileged communities. Fortunately, Eisai, a Japanese pharmaceutical company, developed a more affordable prodrug of ravuconazole called fosravuconazole that is presently being clinically assessed in the first double-blind clinical trial on eumycetoma patients at the MRC in Sudan [97]. This trial hopes to deliver effective and affordable treatment for eumycetoma.

The de novo drug discovery

The chief drawback of the de novo drug discovery is the fact that it is a long, time-consuming, and financially demanding journey [98]. Nevertheless, there are still some initiatives such as the Drugs for Neglected Diseases initiative (DNDi) that support the discovery of treatments for neglected diseases, such as eumycetoma, through this path [99]. Among the DNDi moves towards finding new efficacious medications for eumycetoma was to provide chemical entities for screening against M. mycetomatis. In one of the studies, the in vitro and in vivo screening of more than 800 different compounds resulted in the identification of several new hits that could potentially be developed into effective drugs for eumycetoma caused by M. mycetomatis [100]. These previous findings were the starting point of the Mycetoma Open Source project (MycetOS) in 2018 [101], which focuses on discovering novel treatments for eumycetoma through an Open Pharma approach [102]. Through an open-access database that is publicly driven, the project aims at the discovery of new drugs and the optimization of available leads for management of eumycetoma caused by M. mycetomatis. Thus, MycetOS does not belong to any specific person or organization. It, rather, belongs to everyone who is willing to participate.

References

  1. 1. WHO | Mycetoma. WHO. World Health Organization; 2016; Available: https://www.who.int/buruli/mycetoma/en/
  2. 2. Relhan V, Mahajan K, Agarwal P, Garg VK. Mycetoma: An Update. Indian J Dermatol. Wolters Kluwer—Medknow Publications; 2017;62: 332–340. pmid:28794542
  3. 3. Nenoff P, van de Sande WWJ, Fahal AH, Reinel D, Schöfer H. Eumycetoma and actinomycetoma—an update on causative agents, epidemiology, pathogenesis, diagnostics and therapy. J Eur Acad Dermatology Venereol. 2015;29: 1873–1883. pmid:25726758
  4. 4. Ahmed AO, van Leeuwen W, Fahal A, van de Sande W, Verbrugh H, van Belkum A. Mycetoma caused by Madurella mycetomatis: a neglected infectious burden. Lancet Infect Dis. 2004;4: 566–574. pmid:15336224
  5. 5. Fahal AH. Mycetoma: a thorn in the flesh. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2004;98: 3–11. pmid:14702833
  6. 6. Fahal AH. Mycetoma. Tropical Infectious Diseases: Principles, Pathogens and Practice. W.B. Saunders; 2011. pp. 565–568. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-7020-3935-5.00083–5
  7. 7. Fahal A. Mycetoma. In: N W, C B, P O, R L, H B, editors. Bailey and Love’s Short Practice of Surgery. 26th ed. Taylor & Francis (Oxford); 2013. pp. 64–68.
  8. 8. Welsh O, Vera-Cabrera L, Welsh E, Salinas MC. Actinomycetoma and advances in its treatment. Clin Dermatol. 2012;30: 372–381. pmid:22682184
  9. 9. Fahal AH. Management of mycetoma. Expert Rev Dermatol. Taylor & Francis; 2010;5: 87–93.
  10. 10. Welsh O, Al-Abdely HM, Salinas-Carmona MC, Fahal AH. Mycetoma medical therapy. PLoS Negl Trop Dis; 2014;8: e3218. pmid:25330342
  11. 11. van de Sande WWJ, Fahal AH, Goodfellow M, Mahgoub ES, Welsh O, Zijlstra EE. Merits and pitfalls of currently used diagnostic tools in mycetoma. PLoS Negl Trop Dis; 2014;8: e2918. pmid:24992636
  12. 12. Abd El Bagi ME. New Radiographic Classification of Bone Involvement in Pedal Mycetoma. Am J Roentgenol. 2003;180: 665–668. pmid:12591671
  13. 13. Abd El-Bagi ME, Fahal AH. Mycetoma revisited. Incidence of various radiographic signs. Saudi Med J. 2009;30: 529–33. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19370281 pmid:19370281
  14. 14. Fahal AH, Sheik HE, Homeida MM, Arabi YE, Mahgoub ES. Ultrasonographic imaging of mycetoma. Br J Surg. 1997;84: 1120–2. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9278658 pmid:9278658
  15. 15. EL Shamy ME, Fahal AH, Shakir MY, Homeida MMA. New MRI grading system for the diagnosis and management of mycetoma. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2012;106: 738–742. pmid:22981317
  16. 16. Ahmed AA, van de Sande W, Fahal AH. Mycetoma laboratory diagnosis: Review article. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2017;11: e0005638. pmid:28837657
  17. 17. Desnos-Ollivier M, Bretagne S, Dromer F, Lortholary O, Dannaoui E. Molecular identification of black-grain mycetoma agents. J Clin Microbiol. American Society for Microbiology (ASM); 2006;44: 3517–23. pmid:17021076
  18. 18. Ahmed AO, Mukhtar MM, Kools-Sijmons M, Fahal AH, de Hoog S, van den Ende BG, et al. Development of a species-specific PCR-restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis procedure for identification of Madurella mycetomatis. J Clin Microbiol. American Society for Microbiology (ASM); 1999;37: 3175–8. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10488173 pmid:10488173
  19. 19. Suleiman SH, Wadaella ES, Fahal AH. The Surgical Treatment of Mycetoma. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016;10: e0004690. pmid:27336736
  20. 20. Venugopal P V, Venugopal T V. Treatment of eumycetoma with ketoconazole. Australas J Dermatol. 1993;34: 27–9. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8240184 pmid:8240184
  21. 21. Paugam A, Tourte-Schaefer C, Keïta A, Chemla N, Chevrot A. Clinical cure of fungal madura foot with oral itraconazole. Cutis. 1997;60: 191–3. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9347233 pmid:9347233
  22. 22. Lacroix C, de Kerviler E, Morel P, Derouin F, Feuilhadede Chauvin M. Madurella mycetomatis mycetoma treated successfully with oral voriconazole. Br J Dermatol. 2005;152: 1067–1068. pmid:15888176
  23. 23. Loulergue P, Hot A, Dannaoui E, Dallot A, Poirée S, Dupont B, et al. Successful treatment of black-grain mycetoma with voriconazole. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2006;75: 1106–7. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17172376 pmid:17172376
  24. 24. Negroni R, Tobón A, Bustamante B, Shikanai-Yasuda MA, Patino H, Restrepo A. Posaconazole treatment of refractory eumycetoma and chromoblastomycosis. Rev Inst Med Trop Sao Paulo. 47: 339–46. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16553324 pmid:16553324
  25. 25. N’Diaye B, Dieng MT, Perez A, Stockmeyer M, Bakshi R. Clinical efficacy and safety of oral terbinafine in fungal mycetoma. Int J Dermatol. 2006;45: 154–157. pmid:16445509
  26. 26. Laniado-Laborín R, Cabrales-Vargas MN. Amphotericin B: side effects and toxicity. Rev Iberoam Micol. 2009;26: 223–227. pmid:19836985
  27. 27. Sampaio FMS, Wanke B, Freitas DFS, Coelho JMC de O, Galhardo MCG, Lyra MR, et al. Review of 21 cases of mycetoma from 1991 to 2014 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Vinetz JM, editor. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2017;11: e0005301. pmid:28192433
  28. 28. Castro LGM, Piquero-Casals J. Clinical and mycologic findings and therapeutic outcome of 27 mycetoma patients from São Paulo, Brazil. Int J Dermatol. 2008;47: 160–163. pmid:18211487
  29. 29. Seck B, Diop A, Ndiaye Mame T, Astou D, Fatou G, Fall F, et al. Unusual extra-podal fungal mycetoma with black grains in a Senegalese child. J Mycol Med. Elsevier Masson SAS; 2019; pmid:31864802
  30. 30. Kyriakidis I, Tragiannidis A, Munchen S, Groll AH. Clinical hepatotoxicity associated with antifungal agents. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2016;16: 1–17.
  31. 31. FDA. FDA Drug Safety Communication: FDA limits usage of Nizoral (ketoconazole) oral tablets due to potentially fatal liver injury and risk of drug interactions and adrenal gland problems | FDA [Internet]. [cited 29 May 2019]. Available: https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-drug-safety-communication-fda-limits-usage-nizoral-ketoconazole-oral-tablets-due-potentially
  32. 32. Mahgoub ES, Gumaa SA. Ketoconazole in the treatment of eumycetoma due to Madurella mycetomii. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1984;78: 376–379. pmid:6087513
  33. 33. Andreu JM. Value of ketoconazole in combination with the surgical treatment of fungal mycetoma. Chirurgie. 1986;112: 163–9. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3677908 pmid:3677908
  34. 34. Fahal AH, Rahman IA, El-Hassan AM, Rahman MEAEL, Zijlstra EE. The safety and efficacy of itraconazole for the treatment of patients with eumycetoma due to Madurella mycetomatis. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2011;105: 127–132. pmid:21247608
  35. 35. Zein HAM, Fahal AH, Mahgoub ES, Hassan TA El, Abdel-Rahman ME. Predictors of cure, amputation and follow-up dropout among patients with mycetoma seen at the Mycetoma Research Centre, University of Khartoum, Sudan. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2012;106: 639–644. pmid:22854685
  36. 36. Wadal A, Elhassan TA, Zein HA, Abdel-Rahman ME, Fahal AH. Predictors of Post-operative Mycetoma Recurrence Using Machine-Learning Algorithms: The Mycetoma Research Center Experience. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016;10: e0005007. pmid:27798643
  37. 37. Fahal A, Mahgoub ES, Hassan AM EL, Abdel-Rahman ME. Mycetoma in the Sudan: An Update from the Mycetoma Research Centre, University of Khartoum, Sudan. Wanke B, editor. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2015;9: e0003679. pmid:25816316
  38. 38. Ahmad SR, Singer SJ, Leissa BG. Congestive heart failure associated with itraconazole. Lancet. 2001;357: 1766–1767. pmid:11403818
  39. 39. Okuyan H, Altin C. Heart failure induced by itraconazole. Indian J Pharmacol. 2013;45: 524. pmid:24130392
  40. 40. Vollenbroich R, Maeder MT, Weilenmann D. Congestive heart failure related to antifungal therapy with itraconazole. Int J Cardiol. 2014;172: e170–e171. pmid:24424341
  41. 41. Pilmis B, Jullien V, Sobel J, Lecuit M, Lortholary O, Charlier C. Antifungal drugs during pregnancy: an updated review. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2015;70: 14–22. pmid:25204341
  42. 42. De Santis M, Di Gianantonio E, Cesari E, Ambrosini G, Straface G, Clementi M. First-Trimester Itraconazole Exposure and Pregnancy Outcome. Drug Saf. 2009;32: 239–244. pmid:19338381
  43. 43. Ahmed AOA, van de Sande WWJ, van Vianen W, van Belkum A, Fahal AH, Verbrugh HA, et al. In vitro susceptibilities of Madurella mycetomatis to itraconazole and amphotericin B assessed by a modified NCCLS method and a viability-based 2,3-Bis(2-methoxy-4-nitro-5- sulfophenyl)-5-[(phenylamino)carbonyl]-2H-tetrazolium hydroxide (XTT) assay. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. American Society for Microbiology (ASM); 2004;48: 2742–6. pmid:15215141
  44. 44. van de Sande WWJ, Luijendijk A, Ahmed AOA, Bakker-Woudenberg IAJM, van Belkum A. Testing of the in vitro susceptibilities of Madurella mycetomatis to six antifungal agents by using the Sensititre system in comparison with a viability-based 2,3-bis(2-methoxy-4-nitro-5-sulfophenyl)-5- [(phenylamino)carbonyl]-2H-tetrazolium hydroxide (XTT) assay and a modified NCCLS method. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. American Society for Microbiology Journals; 2005;49: 1364–8. pmid:15793113
  45. 45. Boucher HW, Groll AH, Chiou CC, Walsh TJ. Newer Systemic Antifungal Agents. Drugs. 2004;64: 1997–2020. pmid:15341494
  46. 46. Hardin TC, Graybill JR, Fetchick R, Woestenborghs R, Rinaldi MG, Kuhn JG. Pharmacokinetics of itraconazole following oral administration to normal volunteers. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. American Society for Microbiology (ASM); 1988;32: 1310–3. pmid:2848442
  47. 47. Jaruratanasirikul S, Kleepkaew A. Influence of an acidic beverage (Coca-Cola) on the absorption of itraconazole. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. Springer-Verlag; 1997;52: 235–237. pmid:9218932
  48. 48. Van Peer A, Woestenborghs R, Heykants J, Gasparini R, Gauwenbergh G. The effects of food and dose on the oral systemic availability of itraconazole in healthy subjects. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. Springer-Verlag; 1989;36: 423–426. pmid:2544431
  49. 49. Barone JA, Koh JG, Bierman RH, Colaizzi JL, Swanson KA, Gaffar MC, et al. Food interaction and steady-state pharmacokinetics of itraconazole capsules in healthy male volunteers. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. American Society for Microbiology (ASM); 1993;37: 778–84. pmid:8388198
  50. 50. Poirier M, Cheymol G. Optimisation of Itraconazole Therapy Using Target Drug Concentrations. Clin Pharmacokinet. Springer International Publishing; 1998;35: 461–473. pmid:9884817
  51. 51. Prentice AG, Glasmacher A. Making sense of itraconazole pharmacokinetics. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2005;56: i17–i22. pmid:16120630
  52. 52. De Beule K, Van Gestel J. Pharmacology of Itraconazole. Drugs. 2001;61: 27–37. pmid:11219548
  53. 53. Brüggemann RJM, Alffenaar JC, Blijlevens NMA, Billaud EM, Kosterink JGW, Verweij PE, et al. Clinical Relevance of the Pharmacokinetic Interactions of Azole Antifungal Drugs with Other Coadministered Agents. Clin Infect Dis. Narnia; 2009;48: 1441–1458. pmid:19361301
  54. 54. Gupta AK, Katz HI, Shear NH. Drug interactions with itraconazole, fluconazole, and terbinafine and their management. J Am Acad Dermatol. Mosby Inc.; 1999;41: 237–249. pmid:10426895
  55. 55. Brüggemann RJM, Alffenaar J-WC, Blijlevens NMA, Billaud EM, Kosterink JGW, Verweij PE, et al. Pharmacokinetic drug interactions of azoles. Curr Fungal Infect Rep. Current Science Inc.; 2008;2: 20–27.
  56. 56. Lohitnavy M, Lohitnavy O, Thangkeattiyanon O, Srichai W. Reduced oral itraconazole bioavailability by antacid suspension. J Clin Pharm Ther. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd (10.1111); 2005;30: 201–206. pmid:15896236
  57. 57. Lange D, Pavao JH, Wu J, Klausner M. Effect of a Cola Beverage on the Bioavailability of Itraconazole in the Presence of H 2 Blockers. J Clin Pharmacol. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 1997;37: 535–540. pmid:9208361
  58. 58. Jaruratanasirikul S, Sriwiriyajan S. Effect of omeprazole on the pharmacokinetics of itraconazole. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1998;54: 159–61. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9626921 pmid:9626921
  59. 59. Niwa T, Imagawa Y, Yamazaki H. Drug interactions between nine antifungal agents and drugs metabolized by human cytochromes P450. Curr Drug Metab. 2014;15: 651–79. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25429674 pmid:25429674
  60. 60. Peng C-C, Shi W, Lutz JD, Kunze KL, Liu JO, Nelson WL, et al. Stereospecific Metabolism of Itraconazole by CYP3A4: Dioxolane Ring Scission of Azole Antifungals. Drug Metab Dispos. 2012;40: 426–435. pmid:22106171
  61. 61. Lewis RE, Kontoyiannis DP. Rationale for combination antifungal therapy. Pharmacotherapy. 2001;21: 149S–164S. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11501988 pmid:11501988
  62. 62. Campitelli M, Zeineddine N, Samaha G, Maslak S. Combination Antifungal Therapy: A Review of Current Data. J Clin Med Res. Elmer Press; 2017;9: 451–456. pmid:28496543
  63. 63. K S, Das S, Pandhi D, Rai G, Ansari MA, Gupta C, et al. Challenges in culture-negative cases of Madurella mycetomatis: A case report re-accentuating PCR as an essential diagnostic tool. J Mycol Med. 2017;27: 577–581. pmid:29102309
  64. 64. Crabol Y, Poiree S, Bougnoux M-E, Maunoury C, Barete S, Zeller V, et al. Last generation triazoles for imported eumycetoma in eleven consecutive adults. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2014;8: e3232. pmid:25299610
  65. 65. Vermes A, Guchelaar HJ, Dankert J. Flucytosine: a review of its pharmacology, clinical indications, pharmacokinetics, toxicity and drug interactions. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2000;46: 171–179. pmid:10933638
  66. 66. Dupont B, Datry A, Poirée S, Canestri A, Boucheneb S, Fourniols E. Role of a NSAID in the apparent cure of a fungal mycetoma. J Mycol Med. 2016;26: 86–93. pmid:27233662
  67. 67. Ahmed AO, Abugroun ES, Fahal AH, Zijlstra EE, Belkum A van, Verbrugh HA. Unexpected high prevalence of secondary bacterial infection in patients with mycetoma. J Clin Microbiol. American Society for Microbiology (ASM); 1998;36: 850–1. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9508332 pmid:9508332
  68. 68. Mhmoud NA, Fahal AH, Mahgoub ES, van de Sande WWJ. The combination of amoxicillin-clavulanic acid and ketoconazole in the treatment of Madurella mycetomatis eumycetoma and Staphylococcus aureus co-infection. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2014;8: e2959. pmid:24945499
  69. 69. Sharma AM, Sharma N, Nat A, Rane M, Endy TP. Case report: Non-invasive management of Madura foot with oral posaconazole and ciprofloxacin. Am J Trop Med Hyg. The American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene; 2014;91: 1259–62. pmid:25349373
  70. 70. Castro LGM, Piquero-Casals J. Clinical and mycologic findings and therapeutic outcome of 27 mycetoma patients from São Paulo, Brazil. Int J Dermatol. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd (10.1111); 2008;47: 160–163. pmid:18211487
  71. 71. Fahal AH, el Toum EA, el Hassan AM, Mahgoub ES, Gumaa SA. The host tissue reaction to Madurella mycetomatis: new classification. J Med Vet Mycol. 33: 15–7. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7650573 pmid:7650573
  72. 72. Castro LG, Belda Júnior W, Salebian A, Cucé LC. Mycetoma: a retrospective study of 41 cases seen in São Paulo, Brazil, from 1978 to 1989. Mycoses. 36: 89–95. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8366881 pmid:8366881
  73. 73. Kloezen W, Meis JF, Curfs-Breuker I, Fahal AH, van de Sande WWJ. In vitro antifungal activity of isavuconazole against Madurella mycetomatis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. American Society for Microbiology (ASM); 2012;56: 6054–6. pmid:22964246
  74. 74. Ahmed SA, Kloezen W, Duncanson F, Zijlstra EE, de Hoog GS, Fahal AH, et al. Madurella mycetomatis is highly susceptible to ravuconazole. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2014;8: e2942. pmid:24945848
  75. 75. Ahmed AOA, Sande WWJ van de, Vianen W van, Belkum A van, Fahal AH, Verbrugh HA, et al. In Vitro Susceptibilities of Madurella mycetomatis to Itraconazole and Amphotericin B Assessed by a Modified NCCLS Method and a Viability-Based 2,3-Bis(2-Methoxy-4-Nitro-5- Sulfophenyl)-5-[(Phenylamino)Carbonyl]-2H- Tetrazolium Hydroxide (XTT) Assay. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. American Society for Microbiology (ASM); 2004;48: 2742. pmid:15215141
  76. 76. van Belkum A, Fahal AH, van de Sande WWJ. In vitro susceptibility of Madurella mycetomatis to posaconazole and terbinafine. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. American Society for Microbiology (ASM); 2011;55: 1771–3. pmid:21263050
  77. 77. van de Sande WWJ, de Kat J, Coppens J, Ahmed AOA, Fahal A, Verbrugh H, et al. Melanin biosynthesis in Madurella mycetomatis and its effect on susceptibility to itraconazole and ketoconazole. Microbes Infect. 2007;9: 1114–1123. pmid:17644456
  78. 78. Baltazar LM, Werneck SMC, Soares BM, Ferreira MVL, Souza DG, Pinotti M, et al. Melanin Protects Paracoccidioides brasiliensis from the Effects of Antimicrobial Photodynamic Inhibition and Antifungal Drugs. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2015;59: 4003–4011. pmid:25896704
  79. 79. Blanco JL, Garcia ME. Immune response to fungal infections. Vet Immunol Immunopathol. 2008;125: 47–70. pmid:18565595
  80. 80. Fernandes C, Prados-Rosales R, Silva BMA, Nakouzi-Naranjo A, Zuzarte M, Chatterjee S, et al. Activation of Melanin Synthesis in Alternaria infectoria by Antifungal Drugs. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. American Society for Microbiology (ASM); 2016;60: 1646. pmid:26711773
  81. 81. Geneugelijk K, Kloezen W, Fahal AH, van de Sande WWJ. Active Matrix Metalloprotease-9 Is Associated with the Collagen Capsule Surrounding the Madurella mycetomatis Grain in Mycetoma. Reynolds T, editor. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2014;8: e2754. pmid:24675764
  82. 82. Netti PA, Berk DA, Swartz MA, Grodzinsky AJ, Jain RK. Role of extracellular matrix assembly in interstitial transport in solid tumors. Cancer Res. 2000;60: 2497–503. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10811131 pmid:10811131
  83. 83. Magzoub M, Jin S, Verkman AS. Enhanced macromolecule diffusion deep in tumors after enzymatic digestion of extracellular matrix collagen and its associated proteoglycan decorin. FASEB J. 2008;22: 276–284. pmid:17761521
  84. 84. Ezaldeen EA, Fahal AH, Osman A. Mycetoma Herbal Treatment: The Mycetoma Research Centre, Sudan Experience. Reynolds T, editor. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2013;7: e2400. pmid:23991244
  85. 85. Safi A. TRADITIONAL SUDANESE MEDICINE A primer for health care providers, researchers, and students [Internet]. 1st ed. 2006. Available: https://www.academia.edu/7994190/TRADITIONAL_SUDANESE_MEDICINE_A_primer_for_health_care_providers_researchers_and_students
  86. 86. Ahmed SA, Kloezen W, Fahal AH, de Hoog GS, van de Sande WWJ. In vitro interaction of currently used azoles with terbinafine against Madurella mycetomatis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. American Society for Microbiology Journals; 2015;59: 1373–4. pmid:25487799
  87. 87. Eadie K, Parel F, Helvert-van Poppel M, Fahal A, van de Sande W. Combining two antifungal agents does not enhance survival of Galleria mellonella larvae infected with Madurella mycetomatis. Trop Med Int Heal. 2017;22: 696–702. pmid:28342219
  88. 88. Dutta D, Clevers H. Organoid culture systems to study host–pathogen interactions. Curr Opin Immunol. Elsevier Current Trends; 2017;48: 15–22. pmid:28756233
  89. 89. Takahashi T. Organoids for Drug Discovery and Personalized Medicine. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol. 2019;59: 447–462. pmid:30113875
  90. 90. Ashbee HR, Barnes RA, Johnson EM, Richardson MD, Gorton R, Hope WW. Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of antifungal agents: guidelines from the British Society for Medical Mycology. J Antimicrob Chemother. Narnia; 2014;69: 1162–1176. pmid:24379304
  91. 91. Willems L, van der Geest R, de Beule K. Itraconazole oral solution and intravenous formulations: a review of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. J Clin Pharm Ther. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd (10.1111); 2001;26: 159–169. pmid:11422598
  92. 92. Barone JA, Moskovitz BL, Guarnieri J, Hassell AE, Colaizzi JL, Bierman RH, et al. Enhanced bioavailability of itraconazole in hydroxypropyl-beta-cyclodextrin solution versus capsules in healthy volunteers. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. American Society for Microbiology (ASM); 1998;42: 1862–5. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9661037 pmid:9661037
  93. 93. Mohs RC, Greig NH. Drug discovery and development: Role of basic biological research. Alzheimer’s Dement Transl Res Clin Interv. Elsevier; 2017;3: 651. pmid:29255791
  94. 94. Klug DM, Gelb MH, Pollastri MP. Repurposing strategies for tropical disease drug discovery. Bioorg Med Chem Lett. Pergamon; 2016;26: 2569–2576. pmid:27080183
  95. 95. Oprea TI, Mestres J. Drug Repurposing: Far Beyond New Targets for Old Drugs. AAPS J. 2012;14: 759–763. pmid:22826034
  96. 96. G Y. The worlds most neglected diseases. Ignored by the pharmaceutical industry and by public-private partnerships [editorial]. BMJ Br Med J. 2002;325: 176–177. Available: https://www.popline.org/node/189281
  97. 97. Zijlstra EE, van de Sande WWJ, Fahal AH. Mycetoma: A Long Journey from Neglect. Reynolds T, editor. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016;10: e0004244. pmid:26797103
  98. 98. Munos B. Lessons from 60 years of pharmaceutical innovation. Nat Rev Drug Discov. Nature Publishing Group; 2009;8: 959–968. pmid:19949401
  99. 99. Chatelain E, Ioset J-R. Drug discovery and development for neglected diseases: the DNDi model. Drug Des Devel Ther. Dove Press; 2011;5: 175–81. pmid:21552487
  100. 100. Lim W, Melse Y, Konings M, Phat Duong H, Eadie K, Laleu B, et al. Addressing the most neglected diseases through an open research model: The discovery of fenarimols as novel drug candidates for eumycetoma. Reynolds TB, editor. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2018;12: e0006437. pmid:29698504
  101. 101. DNDi. MycetOS [Internet]. 2018 [cited 19 Jun 2019]. Available: https://www.dndi.org/diseases-projects/open-innovation/mycetos/
  102. 102. Balasegaram M, Kolb P, McKew J, Menon J, Olliaro P, Sablinski T, et al. An open source pharma roadmap. PLoS Med. 2017;14: e1002276. pmid:28419094