Comparative effects of micafungin, caspofungin, and anidulafungin against a difficult-to-treat fungal opportunistic pathogen, Candida glabrata

Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy

Volumn 56, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 1215-1222

  Spreghini, Elisabetta ^a   Orlando, Fiorenza ^b   Sanguinetti, Maurizio ^c   Posteraro, Brunella ^c   Giannini, Daniele ^a   Manso, Esther ^d   Barchiesia, Francesco ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÀ POLITECNICA DELLE MARCHE   (Italy)

^b INRCA   (Italy)

^c CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY   (Italy)

^d OSPEDALI RIUNITI   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AMPHOTERICIN B; ANIDULAFUNGIN; CASPOFUNGIN; ECHINOCANDIN; MICAFUNGIN;

ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ANIMAL MODEL; ANIMAL TISSUE; ANTIFUNGAL ACTIVITY; ANTIFUNGAL RESISTANCE; ANTIFUNGAL SUSCEPTIBILITY; ARTICLE; BACTERIAL COUNT; BACTERIAL LOAD; CANDIDA GLABRATA; COLONY FORMING UNIT; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DRUG EFFICACY; FEMALE; FKS2 GENE; FUNGAL GENE; FUNGAL STRAIN; FUNGICIDAL ACTIVITY; GENE MUTATION; IN VIVO STUDY; INVASIVE CANDIDIASIS; MINIMUM INHIBITORY CONCENTRATION; MOUSE; NONHUMAN; OPPORTUNISTIC INFECTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

ANIMALS; ANTIFUNGAL AGENTS; CANDIDA GLABRATA; CANDIDIASIS; DISEASE MODELS, ANIMAL; DRUG RESISTANCE, FUNGAL; ECHINOCANDINS; FEMALE; HUMANS; LIPOPEPTIDES; MICE; MICROBIAL SENSITIVITY TESTS; MUTATION;

EID: 84857176658     PISSN: 00664804     EISSN: 10986596     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.05872-11     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Andes DR, et al. 2010. In vivo comparison of the pharmacodynamic targets for echinocandin drugs against Candida species. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 54:2497-2506.
2. Andes DR, et al. 2008. In vivo pharmacodynamic target investigation for micafungin against Candida albicans and C. glabrata in a neutropenicmurine candidiasis model. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 52:3497-3503.
3. Arendrup MC, et al. 2011. Echinocandin susceptibility testing of Candida spp. using EUCAST EDef 7.1 and CLSI M27-A3 standard procedures: analysis of the influence of bovine serum albumin supplementation, storage time, and drug lots. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 55:1580-1587.
4. Arendrup MC, et al. 2011. National surveillance of fungemia in Denmark (2004 to 2009). J. Clin. Microbiol. 49:325-334.
5. Arendrup MC, et al. 2010. Echinocandin susceptibility testing of Candida species: comparison of EUCAST EDef 7.1, CLSI M27-A3, Etest, disk diffusion, and agar dilution methods with RPMI and Isosensitest media. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 54:426-439.
6. Brzankalski GE, et al. 2008. Evaluation of aminocandin and caspofungin against Candida glabrata including isolates with reduced caspofungin susceptibility. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 62:1094-1100.
7. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. 2008. Reference method for broth dilution antifungal susceptibility testing of yeasts, 3rd ed. Approved standard M27-A3(28). Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, Wayne, PA.
8. Denning DW. 2003. Echinocandin antifungal drugs. Lancet 362:1142-1151. (Pubitemid 37222342)
9. Ernst EJ, et al. 2002. In vitro activity of micafungin (FK-463) against Candida spp.: microdilution, time-kill, and postantifungal-effect studies. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 46:3846-3853. (Pubitemid 35403260)
10. Espinel-Ingroff A, et al. 2011. In vitro activity of echinocandins against non-Candida albicans: is echinocandin antifungal activity the same? Enferm. Infecc. Microbiol. Clin. 29(Suppl.):3-9.
11. Espinel-Ingroff A. 2003. In vitro antifungal activities of anidulafungin and micafungin, licensed agents and the investigational triazole posaconazole as determined by NCCLS methods for 12,052 fungal isolates: review of the literature. Rev. Iberoam. Micol. 20:121-136. (Pubitemid 38724618)
12. Garcia-Effron G, et al. 2011. Improved detection of Candida sp. fks hot spot mutants by using the method of the CLSI M27-A3 document with the addition of bovine serum albumin. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 55:2245-2255.
13. Garcia-Effron G, et al. 2009. Effect of Candida glabrata FKS1 and FKS2 mutations on echinocandin sensitivity and kinetics of 1,3-beta-D-glucan synthase: implication for the existing susceptibility breakpoint. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 53:3690-3699.
14. Gumbo T, et al. 2006. Anidulafungin pharmacokinetics and microbial response in neutropenic mice with disseminated candidiasis. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 50:3695-3700. (Pubitemid 44684883)
15. Ishikawa J, et al. 2009. Antifungal activity of micafungin in serum. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 53:4559-4562.
16. Klepser ME, et al. 1998. Evaluation of endpoints for antifungal susceptibility determinations with LY303366. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 42:1387-1391. (Pubitemid 28257637)
17. Odabasi Z, et al. 2007. Effects of serum on in vitro susceptibility testing of echinocandins. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 51:4214-4216. (Pubitemid 350057834)
18. Odds FC, et al. 2007. One year prospective survey of Candida bloodstream infections in Scotland. J. Med. Microbiol. 56:1066 -1075.
19. Nagappan V, et al. 2010. Assessment of the in vitro kinetic activity of caspofungin against Candida glabrata. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 54:522-525.
20. Nguyen KT, et al. 2009. Anidulafungin is fungicidal and exerts a variety of postantifungal effects against Candida albicans, C. glabrata, C. parapsilosis, and C. krusei isolates. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 53:3347-3352.
21. Paderu P, et al. 2007. Serum differently alters the antifungal properties of echinocandin drugs. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 51:2253-2256. (Pubitemid 46903131)
22. Pappas PG, et al. 2009. Clinical practice guidelines for the management of candidiasis: 2009 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin. Infect. Dis. 48:503-535.
23. Pappas PG, et al. 2007. Micafungin versus caspofungin for treatment of candidemia and other forms of invasive candidiasis. Clin. Infect. Dis. 45:883-893. (Pubitemid 47580382)
24. Pfaller MA, et al. 2011. Clinical breakpoints for the echinocandins and Candida revisited: integration of molecular, clinical, and microbiological data to arrive at species-specific interpretive criteria. Drug Resist. Updat. 14:164-176.
25. Pfaller MA, et al. 2010. Wild-type MIC distributions and epidemiological cutoff values for the echinocandins and Candida spp. J. Clin. Microbiol. 48:52-56.
26. Pfaller MA, et al. 2007. Epidemiology of invasive candidiasis: a persistent public health problem. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 20:133-163. (Pubitemid 46167771)
27. Pfaller MA, et al. 2004. Determination of fungicidal activities against yeasts and molds: lessons learned from bactericidal testing and the need for standardization. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 17:268-280. (Pubitemid 38534030)
28. Slater JL, et al. 2011. Disseminated candidiasis caused by Candida albicans with amino acid substitutions in Fks1 at position Ser645 cannot be successfully treated with micafungin. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 55:3075-3083.
29. Sun HY, et al. 2010. Characterisation of breakthrough invasive mycoses in echinocandin recipients: an evidence-based review. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 35:211-218.
30. Thompson GR, III, et al. 2008. Development of caspofungin resistance following prolonged therapy for invasive candidiasis secondary to Candida glabrata infection. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 52:3783-3785.
31. Walker LA, et al. 2010. Fungal echinocandin resistance. Fungal Genet. Biol. 47:117-126.
32. Wiederhold NP, et al. 2011. Caspofungin dose escalation for invasive candidiasis due to resistant Candida albicans. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 55:3254-3260.
33. Wiederhold NP, et al. 2007. In vivo efficacy of anidulafungin and caspofungin against Candida glabrata and association with in vitro potency in the presence of sera. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 51:1616-1620. (Pubitemid 46744135)