Epidemiologically, the prevalence of
A. flavus is more frequently reported in countries with dry and semi-arid climates, such as India, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Sudan (
10,
15,
23,
24). A retrospective study in Iran showed that the prevalence of
A. flavus exceeds that of other
Aspergillus species (
10). Our results indicated that the MIC50 of 65 isolates of
A. flavus was as follows: Amphotericin B (1 µg/mL), ITR (0.25 µg/mL), VOR (0.25 µg/mL), POS (0.063 µg/mL), ISA (0.125 µg/mL), luliconazole (0.016 µg/mL), lanoconazole (0.016 µg/mL), and 5-fluocytosine (64 µg/mL). The
in vitro AFST data indicated that all the tested antifungals demonstrated good activity, except for AMB and 5-fluocytosine.
Gheith et al. reported MIC50 values for clinical isolates of
A. flavus isolated from patients with hematologic malignancies in Tunisia as follows: Amphotericin B (6 μg/mL), ITR (0.5 μg/mL), VOR (0.19 μg/mL), POS (0.19 μg/mL), and CAS (0.64 μg/mL) (
25). Pfaller et al. reported MIC50 values of ITR (0.5 μg/mL), POS (0.25 μg/mL), ravuconazole (0.5 μg/mL), and VOR (0.5 μg/mL) against 76
A. flavus isolates (
26).
Shivaparkash et al. analyzed the AFST profiles of triazoles against 188 isolates of
A. flavus collected from India using the CLSI method. Posaconazole exhibited the highest activity (GM MIC, 0.123 mg/L), followed by ITR (GM MIC, 0.177 mg/L), ISA (GM MIC, 0.697 mg/L), and VOR (GM MIC, 1.167 mg/L) (
27). In the study by Vanathi et al., MICs against
A. flavus were reported as follows: Amphotericin B (0.5 - 16 μg/mL), VOR (0.025 - 4 μg/mL), ITR (0.125 - 8 μg/mL), and POS (0.047 - 0.25 μg/mL) (
28).
Although no drug susceptibility breakpoints exist for
A. flavus, there is a consensus on the epidemiological cutoff values (ECVs) for
A. flavus strains: Posaconazole 0.5 mg/L, ITR 1 mg/L, VOR 1 mg/L, ISA 1 mg/L, and AMB 4 mg/L (
19). In the present study, all azoles tested showed good activity against all
A. flavus strains, consistent with previous reports (
29-
32). Our AFST results indicated that luliconazole and lanoconazole demonstrated low MICs (GM = 0.020 μg/mL, with a range of MIC = 0.016 - 0.25 μg/mL) against all
A. flavus strains. Similarly, in a study by Abastabar et al. (
33), luliconazole and lanoconazole exhibited the lowest MICs against sensitive and resistant
A. fumigatus isolates compared to those of other antifungal drugs. The analysis of our AFST data revealed that the GM MIC value of luliconazole was lower than that of lanoconazole against all tested strains.
Although no preparation for systemic administration of these antifungals is currently available,
in vivo studies in animal models have demonstrated that these antifungals are highly effective for managing invasive aspergillosis compared to other drugs (
34). Our results indicated that the MICs for AMB were higher than those for other antifungals, consistent with the study by Moslem and Zarei Mahmoudabadi, which reported MICs of AMB ≥ 8 μg/mL (
35). These findings align with previous studies conducted in Europe (
36,
37) and the Middle East (
8,
38,
39). These differences may be attributed to variations in strains isolated from different specimens, the sample sizes of investigated strains, antifungal treatments, different AFST guidelines, and varying breakpoints applied for MIC determination.
In the present study, all clinical strains were found to be dissimilar, with distinctive genotype profiles. The strains were collected from different patients in two separate regions of Iran. Consistent with our findings, high genetic diversity in
A. flavus has been observed in clinical isolates obtained from humans (
9) and animal infections (
40). Moreover, a prior study by Mohammadi et al. indicated that clinical and environmental
A. fumigatus isolates clustered separately from each other (
41). In line with the present study, Hadrich et al. used a suitable microsatellite marker for typing 63 isolates of
A. flavus, employing a combination of 12 markers with a discriminatory power of 0.97, while a combination of 5 markers (AFM7, AFM3, AFLA7, AFLA3, AFLA1) showed a discriminatory power of 0.952 (
42). Rudramurthy et al. genotyped 162 clinical isolates of
A. flavus using 9 microsatellite markers, reporting a polymorphic rate of 33 alleles for these markers. The discriminatory power of each marker ranged from 0.954 to 0.657. Similar to the present study, their genotyping results did not show a significant relationship between the existing genotypes and different clinical forms (
43).
Guarro et al., using the microsatellite technique for genotyping
Aspergillus spp. from a hospital infection, reported 28 genotypes of
A. fumigatus and 23 genotypes of
A. flavus (
44). Khodavaisy et al. reported the genotyping of 143 clinical and environmental isolates of
A. flavus using nine microsatellite markers, identifying 118 different genotypes. The discriminatory power of these nine markers for all isolates ranged from 0.9457 to 0.4812 (
9).
The differences between our results and those of other studies may be attributed to factors such as the type of strain, geographical region, source of samples, and the number and type of microsatellite markers used. A limitation of the present study is that AFST for echinocandin groups against
A. flavus strains was not performed. Understanding the associations between the genotypes of strains and clinical disease (
12)—which may vary across regions—and therapeutic modalities, including AFST patterns of causative agents against a panel of systemic drug compounds (
45), is an important advantage for clinicians, mycology laboratories, and healthcare specialists. Such insights may help guide personalized treatment.
5.1. Conclusions
In conclusion, our results demonstrated that A. flavus isolates were highly sensitive to luliconazole, lanoconazole, and POS, whereas AMB did not exhibit strong activity against A. flavus. Typing of isolates collected from clinical samples revealed that A. flavus possesses a wide genetic diversity. The microsatellite typing method (MLVA assay) showed very high discriminatory power for studying the molecular epidemiology of clinical isolates of A. flavus. Additionally, no significant relationship was observed between the different genotypes of A. flavus and their AFST profiles.