Anne-Laure Bidaud
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Research Subjects
Anne-Laure Bidaud has a total of 20 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Eric Dannaoui
Faculty of Medicine, Paris-Cité University, Paris, France
3 shared publications - Patrick Schwarz
Department of Internal Medicine, Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, University Hospital Marburg, Marburg, Germany
2 shared publications - Alicia Moreno-Sabater
Sorbonne Université, Centre d'Immunologie et des Maladies Infectieuses (CIMI-PARIS), Inserm U1135, Paris, France; Service de Parasitologie-Mycologie, Hôpital Saint-Antoine, AP-HP, Paris, France
1 shared publication - Anne-Cécile Normand
AP-HP, Groupe Hospitalier La Pitié-Salpêtrière, Service de Parasitologie-Mycologie
1 shared publication - Arnaud Jabet
Service de Parasitologie-Mycologie, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière (AP-HP), Institut Pierre Louis d’Epidémiologie et de Santé Publique (IPLESP), Sorbonne Université, Paris, France
1 shared publication - Aymen Ayachi
Service de Parasitologie-Mycologie, Hôpital Bichat-Claude Bernard, AP-HP, 75018 Paris, France
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- Top Cited PapersOpen Access
- 23 February 2022
- Published by MDPI AG in Journal of Fungi
- Vol. 8 (3) , 220
Terbinafine Resistance in Dermatophytes: A French Multicenter Prospective Study
In recent years, we have moved from the sporadic description of terbinafine-resistant (TerR) Trichophyton spp. isolates to the Indian outbreak due to T. indotineae. Population flows have spread TerR worldwide, altering local epidemiology. We conducted a prospective multicentric study to determine the relative frequency of TerR isolates in France (Paris area) and of the newly introduced T. indotineae species. TerR isolates were screened by the terbinafine-containing-agar-medium (TCAM) method and confirmed by EUCAST. Sequencing methods were used to identify isolates to the species/genotype level and to analyze substitutions in the squalene epoxidase gene (SQLE). In total, 3 isolates out of 580 (T. rubrumn = 1; T. interdigitalen = 1; T. indotineaen = 1) grew on TCAM, showed terbinafine resistance by EUCAST and harbored the Phe397Leu (n = 2) or Leu393Ser (n = 1) substitution in the SQLE. ITS-sequencing of isolates of the T. mentagrophytes/interdigitale complex (n = 125) revealed a relative frequency of 4.8% for T. indotineae and the presence of T. mentagrophytes genotype VII. Despite the detection of terbinafine resistance, isolates from this complex remained susceptible to itraconazole, voriconazole and amorolfine. Terbinafine resistance is present in France and the dermatophyte epidemiology is changing. Efficient systems must be implemented to survey the evolution of newly introduced species and to identify TerR isolates.
- 23 February 2022
- Published by MDPI AG in Journal of Fungi
- Vol. 8 (3) , 220
Top Cited PapersOpen AccessTerbinafine Resistance in Dermatophytes: A French Multicenter Prospective Study
In recent years, we have moved from the sporadic description of terbinafine-resistant (TerR) Trichophyton spp. isolates to the Indian outbreak due to T. indotineae. Population flows have spread TerR worldwide, altering local epidemiology. We conducted a prospective multicentric study to determine the relative frequency of TerR isolates in France (Paris area) and of the newly introduced T. indotineae species. TerR isolates were screened by the terbinafine-containing-agar-medium (TCAM) method and confirmed by EUCAST. Sequencing methods were used to identify isolates to the species/genotype level and to analyze substitutions in the squalene epoxidase gene (SQLE). In total, 3 isolates out of 580 (T. rubrumn = 1; T. interdigitalen = 1; T. indotineaen = 1) grew on TCAM, showed terbinafine resistance by EUCAST and harbored the Phe397Leu (n = 2) or Leu393Ser (n = 1) substitution in the SQLE. ITS-sequencing of isolates of the T. mentagrophytes/interdigitale complex (n = 125) revealed a relative frequency of 4.8% for T. indotineae and the presence of T. mentagrophytes genotype VII. Despite the detection of terbinafine resistance, isolates from this complex remained susceptible to itraconazole, voriconazole and amorolfine. Terbinafine resistance is present in France and the dermatophyte epidemiology is changing. Efficient systems must be implemented to survey the evolution of newly introduced species and to identify TerR isolates.
- Open Access
- 26 January 2022
- Published by MDPI AG in Journal of Fungi
- Vol. 8 (2) , 115
In Vitro Activity of Amphotericin B in Combination with Colistin against Fungi Responsible for Invasive Infections
The in vitro interaction of amphotericin B in combination with colistin was evaluated against a total of 86 strains comprising of 47 Candida species (10 Candida albicans, 15 Candida auris, five Candida glabrata, three Candida kefyr, five Candida krusei, four Candida parapsilosis and five Candida tropicalis), 29 Aspergillus species (five Aspergillus flavus, 10 Aspergillus fumigatus, four Aspergillus nidulans, five Aspergillus niger, and five Aspergillus terreus), and 10 Rhizopus species (seven Rhizopus arrhizus, one Rhizopus delemar and two Rhizopus microsporus) strains. For the determination of the interaction, a microdilution checkerboard technique based on the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) reference method for antifungal susceptibility testing was used. Results of the checkerboard technique were evaluated by the fractional inhibitory concentration index (FICI) based on the Loewe additivity model for all isolates. Different inhibition endpoints were used to capture both the interaction at MIC and sub-MIC levels. Additionally, checkerboard technique results for Candida species were evaluated by response surface analysis based on the Bliss independence model. Against common Candida species, the combination was synergistic for 75% of the strains by FICI and for 66% of the strains by response surface analysis. For C. tropicalis, the interaction was antagonistic for three isolates by FICI, but antagonism was not confirmed by response surface analysis. Interestingly, synergistic and antagonistic FICIs were simultaneously present on checkboard microplates of all three strains. Against C. auris the combination was synergistic for 73% of the strains by response surface analysis and for 33% of the strains by FICI. This discrepancy could be related to the insensitivity of the FICI to detect weak interactions. Interaction for all other strains was indifferent. For Aspergillus and Rhizopus species combination exhibited only indifferent interactions against all tested strains.
- 26 January 2022
- Published by MDPI AG in Journal of Fungi
- Vol. 8 (2) , 115
Open AccessIn Vitro Activity of Amphotericin B in Combination with Colistin against Fungi Responsible for Invasive Infections
The in vitro interaction of amphotericin B in combination with colistin was evaluated against a total of 86 strains comprising of 47 Candida species (10 Candida albicans, 15 Candida auris, five Candida glabrata, three Candida kefyr, five Candida krusei, four Candida parapsilosis and five Candida tropicalis), 29 Aspergillus species (five Aspergillus flavus, 10 Aspergillus fumigatus, four Aspergillus nidulans, five Aspergillus niger, and five Aspergillus terreus), and 10 Rhizopus species (seven Rhizopus arrhizus, one Rhizopus delemar and two Rhizopus microsporus) strains. For the determination of the interaction, a microdilution checkerboard technique based on the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) reference method for antifungal susceptibility testing was used. Results of the checkerboard technique were evaluated by the fractional inhibitory concentration index (FICI) based on the Loewe additivity model for all isolates. Different inhibition endpoints were used to capture both the interaction at MIC and sub-MIC levels. Additionally, checkerboard technique results for Candida species were evaluated by response surface analysis based on the Bliss independence model. Against common Candida species, the combination was synergistic for 75% of the strains by FICI and for 66% of the strains by response surface analysis. For C. tropicalis, the interaction was antagonistic for three isolates by FICI, but antagonism was not confirmed by response surface analysis. Interestingly, synergistic and antagonistic FICIs were simultaneously present on checkboard microplates of all three strains. Against C. auris the combination was synergistic for 73% of the strains by response surface analysis and for 33% of the strains by FICI. This discrepancy could be related to the insensitivity of the FICI to detect weak interactions. Interaction for all other strains was indifferent. For Aspergillus and Rhizopus species combination exhibited only indifferent interactions against all tested strains.
- Open Access
- 4 February 2021
- Published by MDPI AG in Journal of Fungi
- Vol. 7 (2) , 113
Techniques for the Assessment of In Vitro and In Vivo Antifungal Combinations
Systemic fungal infections are associated with high mortality rates despite adequate treatment. Moreover, acquired resistance to antifungals is increasing, which further complicates the therapeutic management. One strategy to overcome antifungal resistance is to use antifungal combinations. In vitro, several techniques are used to assess drug interactions, such as the broth microdilution checkerboard, agar-diffusion methods, and time-kill curves. Currently, the most widely used technique is the checkerboard method. The aim of all these techniques is to determine if the interaction between antifungal agents is synergistic, indifferent, or antagonistic. However, the interpretation of the results remains difficult. Several methods of analysis can be used, based on different theories. The most commonly used method is the calculation of the fractional inhibitory concentration index. Determination of the usefulness of combination treatments in patients needs well-conducted clinical trials, which are difficult. It is therefore important to study antifungal combinations in vivo, in experimental animal models of fungal infections. Although mammalian models have mostly been used, new alternative animal models in invertebrates look promising. To evaluate the antifungal efficacy, the most commonly used criteria are the mortality rate and the fungal load in the target organs.
- 4 February 2021
- Published by MDPI AG in Journal of Fungi
- Vol. 7 (2) , 113
Open AccessTechniques for the Assessment of In Vitro and In Vivo Antifungal Combinations
Systemic fungal infections are associated with high mortality rates despite adequate treatment. Moreover, acquired resistance to antifungals is increasing, which further complicates the therapeutic management. One strategy to overcome antifungal resistance is to use antifungal combinations. In vitro, several techniques are used to assess drug interactions, such as the broth microdilution checkerboard, agar-diffusion methods, and time-kill curves. Currently, the most widely used technique is the checkerboard method. The aim of all these techniques is to determine if the interaction between antifungal agents is synergistic, indifferent, or antagonistic. However, the interpretation of the results remains difficult. Several methods of analysis can be used, based on different theories. The most commonly used method is the calculation of the fractional inhibitory concentration index. Determination of the usefulness of combination treatments in patients needs well-conducted clinical trials, which are difficult. It is therefore important to study antifungal combinations in vivo, in experimental animal models of fungal infections. Although mammalian models have mostly been used, new alternative animal models in invertebrates look promising. To evaluate the antifungal efficacy, the most commonly used criteria are the mortality rate and the fungal load in the target organs.