EUCAST Technical Note on Candida and micafungin, anidulafungin and fluconazole

Mycoses

Volumn 57, Issue 6, 2014, Pages 377-379

  Arendrup, Maiken Cavling ^a   Cuenca Estrella, Manuel ^b   Lass Flörl, Cornelia ^c   Hope, William W ^d   Arikan Akdagli, S ^e   Barchiesi, F ^e   Bille, J ^e   Chryssanthou, E ^e   Gaustad, P ^e   Groll, A ^e   Jarv H ^e   Klimko, N ^e   Koukila Kahkola P ^e   Lagrou, K ^e   Lortholary, O ^e   Moore, C ^e   Velegraki, A ^e   Verweij, P V ^e  

^a STATENS SERUM INSTITUT   (Denmark)

^b INSTITUTO DE SALUD CARLOS III   (Spain)

^c INNSBRUCK MEDICAL UNIVERSITY   (Austria)

^d UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL   (United Kingdom)

^e NONE

Author keywords

Candida; EUCAST breakpoints; MIC; Microdilution; Susceptibility testing

Indexed keywords

AMPHOTERICIN B LIPID COMPLEX; ANIDULAFUNGIN; CASPOFUNGIN; FLUCONAZOLE; MICAFUNGIN; ANTIFUNGAL AGENT; ECHINOCANDIN; LIPOPEPTIDE;

ALLOGENEIC HEMATOPOIETIC STEM CELL TRANSPLANTATION; ANTIBIOTIC SENSITIVITY; ANTIFUNGAL SUSCEPTIBILITY; ARTICLE; CANDIDA; CANDIDA PARAPSILOSIS; CANDIDEMIA; CANDIDIASIS; ESOPHAGUS CANDIDIASIS; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HUMAN; INVASIVE CANDIDIASIS; MINIMUM INHIBITORY CONCENTRATION; NEUTROPENIA; NEUTROPHIL COUNT; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIMARY HEALTH CARE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; URINARY TRACT INFECTION; ANIMAL; DRUG EFFECTS; EUROPE; MICROBIAL SENSITIVITY TEST; STANDARDS;

ANIMALIA; CANDIDA; CANDIDA GLABRATA; CANDIDA PARAPSILOSIS;

ANIMALS; ANTIFUNGAL AGENTS; CANDIDA; ECHINOCANDINS; EUROPE; FLUCONAZOLE; HUMANS; LIPOPEPTIDES; MICROBIAL SENSITIVITY TESTS;

EID: 84900467753     PISSN: 09337407     EISSN: 14390507     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/myc.12170     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. de Wet NT, Bester AJ, Viljoen JJ et al. A randomized, double blind, comparative trial of micafungin (FK463) vs. fluconazole for the treatment of oesophageal candidiasis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2005; 21: 899-907.
2. Kuse ER, Chetchotisakd P, da Cunha CA et al. Micafungin versus liposomal amphotericin B for candidaemia and invasive candidosis: a phase III randomised double-blind trial. Lancet 2007; 369: 1519-27.
3. Pappas PG, Rotstein CM, Betts RF et al. Micafungin versus caspofungin for treatment of candidemia and other forms of invasive candidiasis. Clin Infect Dis 2007; 45: 883-93.
4. Queiroz-Telles F, Berezin E, Leverger G et al. Micafungin versus liposomal amphotericin B for pediatric patients with invasive candidiasis: substudy of a randomized double-blind trial. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2008; 27: 820-6.
5. Pfeiffer CD, Garcia-Effron G, Zaas AK, Perfect JR, Perlin DS, Alexander BD. Breakthrough invasive candidiasis in patients on micafungin. J Clin Microbiol 2010; 48: 2373-80.
6. Slater JL, Howard SJ, Sharp A et al. Disseminated Candidiasis caused by Candida albicans with amino acid substitutions in Fks1 at position Ser645 cannot be successfully treated with micafungin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2011; 55: 3075-83.
7. Howard SJ, Livermore J, Sharp A et al. Pharmacodynamics of echinocandins against Candida glabrata: requirement for dosage escalation to achieve maximal antifungal activity in neutropenic hosts. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2011; 55: 4880-7.
8. Arendrup MC, Perlin DS, Jensen RH, Howard SJ, Goodwin J, Hope W. Differential in vivo activity of anidulafungin, caspofungin and micafungin against C. glabrata with and without FKS resistance mutations. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2012; 56: 2435-42.
9. Andes D, Ambrose PG, Hammel JP et al. Use of pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic analyses to optimize therapy with the systemic antifungal micafungin for invasive candidiasis or candidemia. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2011; 55: 2113-21.
10. Arendrup MC, Rodriguez-Tudela JL, Lass-Flörl C et al. EUCAST technical note on anidulafungin. Clin Microbiol Infect 2011; 17: E18-E20.
11. Reboli AC, Rotstein C, Pappas PG et al. Anidulafungin versus fluconazole for invasive candidiasis. N Engl J Med 2007; 356: 2472-82.
12. Andes D, Diekema DJ, Pfaller MA, Bohrmuller J, Marchillo K, Lepak A. In vivo comparison of the pharmacodynamic targets for echinocandin drugs against Candida species. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2010; 54: 2497-506.
13. Arendrup M, Horn T, Frimodt-Moller N. In vivo pathogenicity of eight medically relevant Candida species in an animal model. Infection 2002; 30: 286-91.
14. Cornely OA, Bassetti M, Calandra T et al. ESCMID* guideline for the diagnosis and management of Candida diseases 2012: non-neutropenic adult patients. Clin Microbiol Infect 2012; 18: 19-37.
15. Ullmann AJ, Akova M, Herbrecht R et al. ESCMID* guideline for the diagnosis and management of Candida diseases 2012: adults with haematological malignancies and after haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT). Clin Microbiol Infect 2012; 18: 53-67.
16. Pappas PG, Kauffman CA, Andes D et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the management of candidiasis: 2009 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis 2009; 48: 503-35.
17. The European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing-Subcommittee on AntifungalSusceptibility Testing (EUCAST-AFST). EUCAST Technical Note on fluconazole. Clin Microbiol Infect 2008; 14: 193-5.
18. Arendrup MC; The Danish Fungaemia Study Group. National Surveillance of Fungemia in Denmark 2010-11. ICAAC 2012; abstract M318.
19. Lee I, Fishman NO, Zaoutis TE et al. Risk factors for fluconazole-resistant Candida glabrata bloodstream infections. Arch Intern Med 2009; 169: 379-83.
20. Tsai HF, Sammons LR, Zhang X et al. Microarray and molecular analyses of the azole resistance mechanism in Candida glabrata oropharyngeal isolates. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2010; 54: 3308-17.