on December 9, 2018 by guest

Transcription

1 JCM Accepts, published online ahead of print on 27 June 2012 J. Clin. Microbiol. doi: /jcm Copyright 2012, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved. 1 2 Progress in Antifungal Susceptibility Testing of Candida spp. using Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute Broth Microdilution Methods, M.A. Pfaller 1,2 and D.J. Diekema 2 JMI Laboratories, North Liberty, Iowa 1 ; University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, Iowa 2 Key words: Candida, Susceptibility testing, CLSI Short running title: Antifungal Testing of Candida Downloaded from on December 9, 2018 by guest 1

2 ABSTRACT Antifungal susceptibility testing of Candida has been standardized and refined and now may play a useful role in managing Candida infections. Important new developments include validation of 24-h reading times for all antifungal agents and the establishment of speciesspecific epidemiological cutoff values (ECVs) for the systemically active antifungal agents and both common and uncommon species of Candida. The clinical breakpoints (CBPs) for fluconazole, voriconazole, and the echinocandins have been revised to provide species-specific interpretive criteria for the six most common species. The revised CBPs not only are predictive of clinical outcome, but also provide a more sensitive means of identifying those strains with acquired or mutational resistance mechanisms. This brief review will serve as an update on the new developments in the antifungal susceptibility testing of Candida spp. using Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) broth microdilution (BMD) methods. 2

3 INTRODUCTION The need for reproducible and clinically relevant antifungal susceptibility testing has been prompted by the increasing number of invasive fungal infections (IFIs), the expanding use of antifungal agents, and the recognition of antifungal resistance as an important clinical problem (5,12,17,26,35,51,55,58,86,88). In vitro antifungal susceptibility testing is now standardized internationally (16) and is becoming essential in patient management and resistance surveillance (58). Although in vitro susceptibility testing is often used to select antimicrobial agents likely to be clinically active for a given infection, perhaps its more important function is the detection of in vitro resistance, i.e., to determine which agents are less likely to be effective (17,58,86,93). Improvements in the ability of antifungal susceptibility testing methods to detect emerging resistance patterns, coupled with molecular characterization of resistance mechanisms, provide useful adjuncts to optimize the effectiveness of antifungal therapy (16,26,35,55,56,58,64,70,71,88). There are two internationally-recognized standard methods for the performance of antifungal susceptibility testing of Candida spp. using broth microdilution (BMD): that of the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) (13,14) and that of the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) (23,24,87). These methods provide MIC data for azole and echinocandin antifungal agents that are both quantitatively and qualitatively similar (4,67,72). As a result, in vitro antifungal susceptibility testing now plays an increasingly important role in guiding therapeutic decision making, as an aid in drug development studies, and as a means of tracking the development of antifungal resistance in epidemiologic studies (5,16,26,35,37,52,55,58,86,88). In recent years, studies by the CLSI Subcommittee on Antifungal Susceptibility Testing and collaborating investigators have generated data to support a more rapid time for MIC result reporting (39,62,72,73), established epidemiological cutoff values (ECVs) for Candida and the systemically active antifungal agents (64,68,74,75,77) and developed new species-specific clinical breakpoints (CBPs) for fluconazole (66), voriconazole 3

4 (70), and the echinocandins (71). This review summarizes these recent advances in the performance of antifungal susceptibility testing of Candida spp. using CLSI BMD methods and provides commentary on the rationale for, impact of, and recommendations for the clinical application of antifungal susceptibility testing of Candida spp. Validation of 24-h MIC Determinations for Azoles and Flucytosine. The vast majority of Candida species achieve sufficient growth within 24-h of incubation to allow MIC testing using the CLSI BMD method (20-22,62). Given that a shorter duration of incubation avoids the potentially confounding effect of trailing growth on 48-h MICs (7,62,80,84), is more efficient and practical for use in the clinical laboratory (22,62), and provides useful information sooner (30,48,54), attention has been focused on the validation of 24-h MIC determinations for antifungal agents and Candida. Investigators have used previously gathered Candida MIC data to evaluate the essential (EA: agreement within ± 2 log 2 dilutions) and categorical (CA) agreement between MIC values determined at 24-h and 48-h incubation for amphotericin B, fluconazole, flucytosine, itraconazole, posaconazole and voriconazole (39,50,62,64,68,73,74,77). It is now clear that MIC determinations at 24-h provide good EA and CA with 48-h values for these antifungal agents and up to 11 different species of Candida, allowing clinical laboratories to read BMD MICs for antifungal susceptibility testing of Candida in the same time frame as other antimicrobial susceptibility tests. Development of Epidemiological Cutoff Values (ECVs) for Candida spp. and the Systemically Active Antifungal Agents. Clinical interpretive breakpoints (CBPs) for in vitro antimicrobial susceptibility testing may be used to indicate those clinical isolates that are likely to respond to treatment with a given antimicrobial agent administered using the approved dosing regimen for that agent (93). Conversely, epidemiological cutoff values (ECVs) can be considered to represent the most 4

5 sensitive measure of the emergence of strains with decreased susceptibility to a given agent (36,90). An ECV is an MIC threshold value that allows the discrimination of wild-type (WT) strains (those without mutational or acquired resistance mechanisms) from non-wt strains (those having mutational or acquired resistance mechanisms) (36,90,93). The typical MIC distribution for WT organisms covers three-to-five doubling dilutions surrounding the modal MIC (3,36,92). The ECV for each organism antimicrobial agent pair is obtained by considering the WT MIC distribution, the modal MIC for each distribution, and the inherent variability of the test (usually within ± one doubling dilution). For most MIC distributions the ECV is determined to occur at an MIC that is approximately two dilutions above the modal MIC and encompasses (MIC ECV) ~ 95% of the results in the WT MIC distribution (92). Organisms with mutational or acquired resistance mechanisms may be included among those for which the MIC results are higher than the ECV (3,36,75) and ECVs may be used as a means of tracking the emergence of reduced susceptibility to antifungal agents among Candida spp. (64,74,75). ECVs may also be used to identify isolates that are less likely to respond to antimicrobial therapy due to acquired resistance mechanisms when limited clinical data preclude the development of CBPs (64,66,68,70-74,77,93). Over the past 3-years ECVs have been established for amphotericin B, flucytosine, the triazoles (fluconazole, itraconazole, posaconazole, and voriconazole) and the echinocandins (anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin) and 11 species of Candida using CLSI BMD methods (Table 1). The process used to develop the ECVs for each class of antifungal agents and the relationship of the ECVs to the various acquired or mutational resistance mechanisms (when known) is briefly described below. Amphotericin B. The ECVs determined after 24-h incubation for amphotericin B and each species of Candida are shown in Table 1. The ECV was 2 mcg/ml for all species and encompasses 97% to 100% of results for the indicated species (77). 5

6 In the literature, a default breakpoint for resistance or nonsusceptibility to amphotericin B is variably cited to be an MIC of either > 0.5 mcg/ml or > 1 mcg/ml (38,53,85). This cutoff is loosely based on the attainment of peak serum concentrations of 2 mcg/ml and the pharmacodynamic (PD) correlate of a peak serum concentration-to-mic ratio of 2 as predictive of near maximal in vivo activity (85). Analysis of both clinical trials data (81,82) and of clinical and microbiological data from population-based surveillance studies (53) have failed to establish any clinical correlation between amphotericin B MICs, as determined by either CLSI BMD or Etest methodology, and clinical outcome. Park et al (53) specifically addressed the predictive value of a CBP of 1 mcg/ml using the CLSI method and found a distinct lack of prediction of clinical outcome; however, the limited data set of 107 cases of candidemia treated with amphotericin B did not contain an episode for which the amphotericin B MIC was greater than 1 mcg/ml. The data thus far suggests that an ECV of 2 mcg/ml as determined by 24-h CLSI BMD methods should be used to decide whether an isolate of Candida spp. should be considered WT (MIC ECV) or non-wt (MIC > ECV) with respect to amphotericin B susceptibility (77). This cutoff would encompass all of the isolates reported by Rex et al (81,82) and by Park et al (53). Notably, these WT strains of Candida were associated with a 50% (53) to 79% (81,82) clinical success rate when treated with amphotericin B. A similar response rate of 65% was also seen in the amphotericin B arm (115 patients) of a study reported by Mora-Duarte et al (46) where the MIC range was mcg/ml. Thus, an amphotericin B MIC greater than 2 mcg/ml should be considered to be distinctively unusual for the vast majority of Candida spp., suggesting that treatment with this agent alone may not be optimal (85,86). Flucytosine. The results of more than 17,000 MIC determinations from 16 different laboratories were used to generate the ECVs for flucytosine and eight different species of Candida (77) (Table 1). The 24-h ECVs were mcg/ml for all species with the exception of C. krusei 6

7 (ECV, 32 mcg/ml). These ECVs approximate the susceptible breakpoint of 1 mcg/ml established by the British Society for Mycopathology (10) and are well below the CBP for susceptibility of 4 mcg/ml proposed by the CLSI (13,14,85). The CLSI CBP was based on a combination of historical data and in vivo results from animal studies with little or no consideration of clinical data or mechanisms of resistance (85). The finding that the flucytosine MIC for the vast majority of Candida spp. isolates is 0.5 mcg/ml (77) raises concern that the CLSI CBPs of 4 mcg/ml (susceptible [S]), 8-16 mcg/ml (intermediate [I]), and 32 mcg/ml (resistant [R]) may be too high and are likely to be insensitive to the development of decreased susceptibility or resistance to flucytosine among the more highly susceptible species of Candida (2). Resistance mechanisms for flucytosine are well described among various species of Candida and include mutations in the genes FCY2, FCY1, and FUR1 encoding for the cytosine permease, cytosine deaminase, and phosphoribosyltransferase enzymes, respectively. Studies of C. albicans (18,34,78), C. glabrata (19,94), C. dubliniensis (45), and C. lusitaniae (25), have elucidated several different patterns of susceptibility to flucytosine, each of which is dependent upon the mutations present. In general, mutations in FCY2 (permease) result in MICs that are somewhat elevated (>0.5 mcg/ml but < 8 mcg/ml) whereas mutations in FCY1 (deaminase) and FUR1 (phosphoribosyltransferase) result in MICs that are mcg/ml depending upon whether the organism is heterozygous or homozygous for the mutation (18,19,25,34,78,94). Dodgson et al (18) found that isolates of C. albicans representing clade 1 for which FUR1 was WT in both alleles all had MICs for flucytosine that were < 0.5 mcg/ml, those with a mutation in one allele had MICs of mcg/ml, and those with mutations in both alleles all had MICs > 16 mcg/ml. This was confirmed by Hope et al (34) who also demonstrated that a C. albicans isolate with a mutation in FCY1 exhibited an intermediate level of flucytosine resistance with an MIC of 4 mcg/ml. In the related species C. dubliniensis, McManus et al (45) reported that isolates with a homozygous mutation in FCY1 demonstrated a high degree of resistance (MIC, 7

8 mcg/ml) and those without a mutation all had flucytosine MICs of 0.25 mcg/ml or less. Edlind and Katiyar (19) showed that the haploid yeast C. glabrata exhibited high-level resistance to flucytosine (MIC, 32 mcg/ml) that was associated with mutations in either FCY1 or FUR1 and moderately elevated MICs (MIC, 1 mcg/ml) with mutations in FCY2. Similar findings were also reported by Florent et al (25) with the haploid yeast C. lusitaniae. Taken together these findings indicate that normally flucytosine-susceptible (WT) species of Candida exhibit MICs of 0.5 mcg/ml and do not have mutations in FCY1, FCY2, or FUR1, whereas non-wt strains for which MICs are between 1 mcg/ml and 8 mcg/ml may have mutations in FCY2 or are heterozygous for mutations in FUR1 or FCY1 and those strains that are homozygous for mutations in FCY1 or FUR1 are highly resistant with MICs in excess of 32 mcg/ml. These data provide support for the ECVs shown in Table 1 in that WT strains for which the flucytosine MIC is 0.5 mcg/ml are unlikely to possess a flucytosine resistance mutation, whereas those strains for which the MIC is greater than the ECV (non-wt; MIC, > 0.5 mcg/ml) are likely to be either homozygous or heterozygous for a flucytosine resistance mutation. Triazoles. The systemically active triazoles that are available for the treatment or prevention of invasive candidiasis (IC) include fluconazole, itraconazole, posaconazole, and voriconazole. These agents all share a common mechanism of action, inhibition of lanosterol demethylase, as well as several mechanisms of resistance (61). Resistance to the triazole antifungal agents can arise from a modification in the quantity or quality of the target enzyme, reduced access of the drug to the target via either MDR (multidrug resistance) or CDR (Candida drug resistance) efflux pumps, or some combination of those mechanisms (31,58,61,89). The ECVs for each of these triazoles were derived by considering the MIC distributions for several thousand isolates of Candida species and the relationship of resistance mechanisms to the MICs of non-wt strains (64,68,73,74,77) (Table 1). 8

9 The ECVs for fluconazole and 11 different species of Candida were derived from a global surveillance database of 15,839 MIC values all determined by the 24-h CLSI BMD method (64,66,72,75) (Table 1). The fluconazole ECVs ranged from 0.5 mcg/ml to 2 mcg/ml for seven of the 11 species and encompassed 95% to 99% of the results in each MIC distribution. In the cases of C. glabrata (ECV, 32 mcg/ml), C. krusei (ECV, 64 mcg/ml), C. guilliermondii (ECV, 8 mcg/ml), and C. pelliculosa (ECV, 4 mcg/ml), the elevated ECVs depict the decreased susceptibility to fluconazole that is intrinsic to those species (69). The relationship between the fluconazole MIC and the various resistance mechanisms (MDR and CDR efflux pumps, overexpression/mutation of ERG11 [encodes the target enzyme]) has been derived by studying serial isolates of C. albicans from AIDS patients with recurrent orophryngeal candidiasis (OPC) (11,40,79,95-97), as well as from patients with IC (43,44,47,49), and in genetically manipulated strains (41). One of the first demonstrations of the relationship between the fluconazole MIC for C. albicans and fluconazole resistance mechanisms is found in the work of White and colleagues (95-97), who investigated the resistance mechanisms expressed in an isogenic set of 17 sequential isolates of C. albicans from a single HIV-infected patient with relapsing OPC treated with increasing doses of fluconazole (Table 2). As the fluconazole MIC for successive isolates increased progressively from 0.25 mcg/ml (WT) against the pretreatment isolate (isolate 1) to mcg/ml against isolates 16 and 17, the number of identified resistance mechanisms increased from overexpression of the MDR1 efflux pumps (resulting in the MIC increasing from 0.25 mcg/ml [WT] to 8 mcg/ml [non-wt]) through point mutations in ERG11, loss of allelic variation in ERG11 and overexpression of ERG11 (MIC increased from 8 mcg/ml to mcg/ml) and finally overexpression of the CDR1 efflux pumps, resulting in high-level resistance to both fluconazole (MIC, mcg/ml) and itraconazole (MIC, 4-8 mcg/ml). This isolate set demonstrated a stepwise, quantitative increase in fluconazole resistance in which the fluconazole MIC depended on the number and type of resistance mechanisms expressed in 9

10 each isolate. Isolates for which the fluconazole MIC was less than the ECV of 0.5 mcg/ml (Table 1) were found to lack any of the described resistance mechanisms whereas those for which the MIC was greater than the ECV all possessed one or more fluconazole resistance mechanisms. The ECVs for itraconazole and eight species of Candida were derived from an MIC database of more than 30,000 values all determined by the 24-h CLSI BMD method (77) (Table 1). The ECV was lowest for C. albicans (0.12 mcg/ml), was 0.25 mcg/ml for C. dubliniensis and 0.5 mcg/ml for all other species with the exception of C. glabrata (2 mcg/ml), C. krusei (1 mcg/ml) and C. guilliermondii (1 mcg/ml). Aside from C. albicans, these ECVs are all higher than the susceptible CLSI CBP of 0.12 mcg/ml (83,85). This CBP was assigned based entirely on MICs and clinical outcomes for isolates of Candida spp. (90% of which were C. albicans) obtained from patients with OPC who were treated with oral itraconazole (capsule and/or solution) and in whom serum concentrations of itraconazole of less than 0.5 mcg/ml were common (83). An example of the relationship between the itraconazole MIC for C. albicans and various azole resistance mechanisms is evident from the data in Table 2 where a shift from a WT MIC phenotype (MIC 0.12 mcg/ml) to a non-wt phenotype (MIC, 4-8 mcg/ml) is influenced primarily by the overexpression of the CDR efflux pumps. Given the ECVs shown in Table 1, it is clear that the CLSI CBPs for itraconazole are not appropriate for any species other than C. albicans. Whereas the existing CLSI CBPs for itraconazole should provide an optimal means for detecting decreased susceptibility among isolates of C. albicans, the ECVs shown in Table 1 should be used for this purpose for all other species. The ECVs for voriconazole and posaconazole and 11 different species of Candida were derived from a database of 17,010 MIC values all determined by the 24-h CLSI BMD method (74,75). The ECV for voriconazole was lowest for C. kefyr (0.015 mcg/ml) and was 0.03 to

11 mcg/ml for all other species with the exception of C. glabrata (0.5 mcg/ml), C. krusei (0.5 mcg/ml), C. guilliermondii (0.25 mcg/ml), and C. pelliculosa (0.25 mcg/ml) (Table 1). Likewise, the ECV for posaconazole was lowest for C. albicans (0.06 mcg/ml) and was mcg/ml for C. tropicalis, C. parapsilosis, C. lusitaniae, C. kefyr and C. dubliniensis (Table 1). Similar to voriconazole, the species with higher posaconazole ECVs were C. glabrata (2 mcg/ml), C. krusei (0.5 mcg/ml), C. guilliermondii (0.5 mcg/ml), and C. pelliculosa (2 mcg/ml), reflecting the decreased susceptibility to the azoles that is intrinsic to these species (69). These ECVs encompass 94% to 100% of the results in each MIC distribution (74,75). As with fluconazole, the relationship between the voriconazole and posaconazole MICs for C. albicans and azole resistance mechanisms has been demonstrated using an isogenic series of isolates with one or more resistance mechanisms (41). MacCallum et al (41) employed sequential genetic manipulations of a single strain of C. albicans to demonstrate the impact of the level of expression of CDR efflux pumps and the presence or absence of mutations in ERG11 on the level of resistance to voriconazole and posaconazole (Table 3). An increase in the expression of CDR genes coupled with a mutation in both of the ERG11 alleles resulted in an increase of the voriconazole MIC from mcg/ml in the WT parental strain to 2 mcg/ml (greater than the ECV of 0.03 mcg/ml) in the mutant strain. A similar increase in the posaconazole MIC from 0.03 mcg/ml (WT) to 0.25 mcg/ml (greater than the ECV of 0.06 mcg/ml) was observed. A more modest effect on voriconazole (MIC increase from mcg/ml to either 0.06 mcg/ml or 0.12 mcg/ml) was seen with mutations in one or both ERG 11 alleles coupled with a basal level of CDR expression. Notably, mutations in ERG11 had no effect on the posaconazole MICs. This is consistent with the understanding that certain mutations near the heme site of the C. albicans lanosterol demethylase result in significant levels of resistance to voriconazole (and fluconazole) but have less effect on the susceptibility of the organisms to posaconazole (and itraconazole). This differential susceptibility to the various azoles is thought to be due to the additional contacts with the target afforded by the long side 11

12 chains of posaconazole and itraconazole, allowing these agents to retain activity despite decreased target affinity for voriconazole and fluconazole (98). An increased expression of CDR with WT ERG11 resulted in an 8-to-16-fold increase in the MICs of posaconazole and voriconazole, respectively. Thus isolates of C. albicans for which the voriconazole and posaconazole MICs are less than their respective ECVs (0.03 mcg/ml and 0.06 mcg/ml, respectively) lack any of the described azole resistance mechanisms whereas those for which the MIC was greater than the ECV possess one or more azole resistance mechanisms. Echinocandins. All three of the echinocandins (anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin) are approved for the treatment of candidemia and other forms of IC and are considered to be the agents of first choice for the initial treatment of most episodes of IC (52). These agents share both a common mechanism of action, inhibition of the glucan synthase (GS) enzyme complex, as well as a common mechanism of resistance (56). Echinocandin resistance in C. albicans, C. tropicalis, and C. krusei is associated with point mutations in the fks 1 gene (encodes the target subunit of GS) (56). Likewise, mutations in both fks 1 and fks 2 are responsible for clinical echinocandin resistance in C. glabrata (56,99). These mutations, which result in elevated MICs (4-to-30-fold MIC increases for caspofungin and 90-to-110-fold increase for anidulafungin and micafungin), reduce the sensitivity of GS to drug inhibition by 30-to-1000-fold (28,29). Among the less susceptible species, C. parapsilosis and C. guilliermondii both possess a naturally occurring polymorphism at the edge of hotspot 1 (HS1) in fks 1 that accounts for the MICs of the echinocandins for these species being elevated relative to the WT strains of other species (27). The ECVs for the echinocandins and 11 different species of Candida were derived from a database of more than 9,000 MIC values all determined by 24-h CLSI BMD methods (68,75) (Table 1). The ECVs for all three echinocandins were 0.25 mcg/ml for seven of the 11 species and encompassed 96% to 100% of the results in each MIC distribution (68,75). In the case of C. parapsilosis (ECVs of 1 mcg/ml to 4 mcg/ml), C. lusitaniae (ECVs of 0.5 mcg/ml to 2 12

13 mcg/ml), C. guilliermondii (ECVs of 2 mcg/ml to 4 mcg/ml), and C. orthopsilosis (ECVs of 0.5 mcg/ml to 2 mcg/ml), the elevated ECVs clearly show the decreased susceptibility to the echinocandins that is intrinsic to these species. The ability of the echinocandin ECVs to differentiate WT strains of Candida spp. from those with acquired resistance mutations was demonstrated by applying the ECVs for each species to a collection of 229 WT isolates (no fks mutations) and 50 isolates with fks mutations (71). Using the anidulafungin ECVs for C. albicans (0.12 mcg/ml), C. glabrata (0.25 mcg/ml), C. tropicalis (0.12 mcg/ml), and C. krusei (0.12 mcg/ml), the CLSI BMD method correctly classified 90% (45 of 50) of the mutant strains as non-wt and 98% (224 of 229) of those without fks mutations as WT. With caspofungin as the test reagent and ECVs of 0.12 mcg/ml (C. albicans, C. glabrata, and C. tropicalis) or 0.25 mcg/ml (C. krusei), the CLSI BMD method correctly classified 98% (49 of 50) of mutant strains and 91% (209 of 229) of WT strains. The ECVs for micafungin are 0.03 mcg/ml for C. albicans and C. glabrata and 0.12 mcg/ml for C. tropicalis and C. krusei (Table 1). Using these ECVs, the CLSI method with micafungin correctly classified all 50 mutant strains and 190 (83%) of 229 WT strains (71). Thus, as seen with flucytosine and the triazoles, the ECVs for the echinocandins provide a sensitive and specific means of differentiating WT from non-wt strains of Candida using the CLSI BMD method. New CLSI Species-Specific Clinical Breakpoints (CBPs) for Fluconazole, Voriconazole, and the Echinocandins and the Frequently Encountered Species of Candida. The CLSI Subcommittee for Antifungal Susceptibility Testing has established CBPs for fluconazole, voriconazole, and the echinocandins versus Candida spp. by taking into account the MIC distributions, pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) parameters, resistance mechanisms, and clinical outcomes as they relate to MIC values (59,60,63). Initially the CLSI Subcommittee did not allow for species-specific CBPs and assigned values for susceptibility (S) of 8 mcg/ml for fluconazole, 1 mcg/ml for voriconazole, and 2 mcg/ml for the 13

14 echinocandins to be applied to all species of Candida despite clear evidence that the MICs for these agents were significantly lower for some species than others and that clinical outcome data was lacking for all but the six most common species (58). A comparison of the ECVs for the various species-antifungal agent pairs shown in Table 1 with those CBPs show that the originally proposed CBPs were too high to provide a sensitive means of predicting the emergence of resistance among the highly susceptible species and at the same time bisected the WT MIC distributions of other species (e.g., C. glabrata and fluconazole) (2,3). As a result, the CLSI Subcommittee reconsidered the MIC distributions for each species and antifungal agent, developed ECVs as shown in Table 1, compiled more data on the relationship of resistance mechanisms to both MICs and outcomes and related this information to the available PK/PD and outcomes data for each species to arrive at species-specific CBPs that are both predictive of clinical outcomes and provide a more sensitive means of detecting the emergence of resistance. The details of these deliberations are well described in the relevant publications (66,70,71) and will not be repeated here. The revised CBPs for fluconazole, voriconazole, anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin are provided in Table 1. CBPs for these agents are only applicable to the six species shown in Table 1 due to the lack of sufficient clinical outcomes data for the less common species. In lieu of CBPs for other species of Candida, the ECVs shown in Table 1 should be used to detect the emergence of strains having decreased susceptibility to the triazoles and echinocandins. Likewise, given the absence of CBPs for most species and amphotericin B, flucytosine, itraconazole, and posaconazole, the ECVs should be used in efforts to detect the emergence of potential resistance to these agents. Additional clinical outcomes data and investigations of resistance mechanisms prevalent among the less common species will be required before CBPs can be assigned. Rationale for-, Clinical Impact of-, and Recommendations for- the Use of Antifungal Susceptibility Testing of Candida Species Against Systemically Active Antifungal Agents. 14

15 The primary objective of all in vitro antimicrobial susceptibility testing (e.g. antifungal, antibacterial, antiviral) is to predict the likely impact of administration of the tested agent on the outcome of infection caused by the treated organism or similar organisms (86,93). Antifungal susceptibility testing is performed for the same reasons as antibacterial testing is performed (83,85,86): (i) to provide a reliable estimate of the relative activities of two or more antimicrobial agents against the pathogen of interest; (ii) to correlate with in vivo activity and to predict the likely outcome of therapy; (iii) to provide a quantitative means by which to survey the development of resistance among a normally susceptible population of organisms; and (iv) to predict the therapeutic potential and spectrum of activity of newly developed investigational agents. In the clinical microbiology laboratory, the focus of antifungal susceptibility testing is directed towards a specific clinical isolate causing infection in an individual patient. Recent studies examining the clinical use of real time antifungal susceptibility testing have shown that when such testing is available on site, physicians find the results helpful and frequently alter therapy based on the results (8,32,33,37,42,52,54). Collins et al (15) reported that susceptibility testing of C. glabrata isolates results in lower overall treatment costs, based on de-escalation in therapy from an expensive echinocandin to fluconazole for patients with documented C. glabrata fungemia. These authors suggest that antifungal susceptibility testing is a necessity in today s world of resistant organisms and expensive agents (15). Likewise, Parkins et al (54), suggest that accurate and timely antifungal susceptibility testing may be more important than has been recognized previously. In a population-based survey conducted in Canada between July 1999 and June 2004, they found that empirical therapy with an adequate antifungal agent (isolate susceptible in vitro) was associated with a significant reduction in all-cause morality from 46% to 27% (P=0.02). Notably, empirical fluconazole therapy was more likely to be deemed inadequate and inadequate therapy was an independent predictor of death in-hospital. Thus it appears that routine antifungal susceptibility testing can serve as an adjunct in the 15

16 treatment of candidemia in the same way that antibacterial testing aids in the treatment of bacterial infections (6,17,26,86). In considering these findings one must understand that the prediction of outcome in a complex and dynamic biological system, such as a clinical infection, from results obtained in an artificial and well-defined matrix (in vitro susceptibility test) is an inherently error-prone process in which only modest degrees of correlation can be expected (83,85,86). In order to be useful clinically, in vitro susceptibility testing of antimicrobial agents should reliably predict the in vivo response to therapy in human infections. However, the in vitro susceptibility of an infecting organism to the administered antimicrobial agent is only one of the factors that may influence the likelihood that therapy for an infection will be successful (17,58,65,76,86,93). Factors related to the host immune response, severity of underlying disease, drug pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, drug interactions, proper patient management, and factors related to the virulence of the infecting organism and its interaction with both the host and the antimicrobial agent all influence the outcome of treatment of an infectious episode (17,65,86,93). In order to appreciate the clinical value one can expect from antifungal susceptibility testing, it must be understood that after more than 40 years of study, in vitro susceptibility testing can be said to predict the outcome of bacterial infections with an accuracy that has been summarized as the rule (17,86): infections due to isolates that are susceptible to the agent being given respond to therapy approximately 90% of the time, whereas infections due to isolates that are resistant to the agent being given respond approximately 60% of the time. There is now a considerable body of data indicating that standardized antifungal susceptibility testing (CLSI M27-A3; EUCAST EDef 7.1) for several organism-drug combinations (most notably Candida spp. and azole antifungal agents) provides results that have a predictive utility consistent with the rule (66,70,71,86) (Table 4). Antifungal resistance results in elevated MICs that are associated with poorer outcomes and breakthrough infections during antifungal treatment and prophylaxis. Antifungal resistance 16

17 and its negative consequences can often be traced to acquisition of a particular resistance mechanism. The most obvious consequence of antifungal resistance may be seen in the results shown in Table 4, where the clinical outcome was significantly poorer for those patients infected with isolates of Candida for which the MICs of fluconazole, voriconazole, and itraconazole, respectively, were R compared with those for which the MICs were classified as S. Similarly, Baddley et al (9) reported a lower mortality rate among patients with candidemia for which the fluconazole MIC of the infecting isolate was 2 mcg/ml (S) than among those for which the MIC was 8 mcg/ml (R). Taken together, these data indicate that isolates with high (R) azole MICs obtained from patients with Candida infections are associated with lower treatment success rates and higher mortality than those with low or susceptible MICs, illustrating the negative impact of antifungal resistance on clinical outcomes (17,58). One obstacle to demonstrating clinical relevance of antifungal susceptibility testing within a single Candida species that is usually azole- (C. albicans, C. tropicalis, C. parapsilosis) or echinocandin - (C. albicans, C. tropicalis, C. glabrata) susceptible is the absence of sufficient numbers of isolates in clinical trials that are resistant to the drug of interest (66,70,71,86). In order to establish a relationship between MIC and clinical outcome, one requires not only sufficient numbers of resistant isolates, but also a sufficient number of patients treated with the drug to which the isolate is later shown to be resistant (17,86). It is often well after a given drug is introduced into clinical practice that sufficient numbers of clinical failures or breakthrough infections are detected to allow the establishment of a resistant susceptibility testing category (71,91). Antifungal resistance can lead to breakthrough invasive fungal infections in high-risk patients receiving antifungal prophylaxis. For example, Alexander et al (1) described eight cases of breakthrough fungemia among 295 adult bone marrow transplant (BMT) recipients receiving fluconazole prophylaxis between October 2002 and June 2004 at Duke University Medical Center. Among the eight cases of breakthrough fungemia, seven were due to C. 17

18 glabrata, and four of the seven exhibited cross-resistance to all azoles (fluconazole, itraconazole, posaconazole, and voriconazole). Although the resistance mechanism responsible for the pan-azole resistance was not elucidated, it was likely due to elevated CDR gene-encoded efflux pump activity, as this is prevalent in C. glabrata and has been associated with cross-resistance among azole antifungal agents. Another Duke University Medical Center study examined cases of breakthrough candidiasis among BMT or solid-organ transplant recipients receiving micafungin prophylaxis (57). Between February 2006 and May 2008, 649 high-risk patients received at least three doses of micafungin and 12 (1.8%) subsequently developed IC involving a total of 19 isolates of Candida (7 of C. parapsilosis, 6 of C. glabrata, 3 of C. tropicalis, and 1 each of C. albicans, C. dubliniensis, and C. krusei). Among the breakthrough isolates, micafungin MICs were elevated for 5 of 7 isolates of C. parapsilosis (MIC range, 4-8 mcg/ml), for 5 of 6 C. glabrata isolates (MIC range, 4-8 mcg/ml) and 2 of 3 C. tropicalis isolates (MICs, 2 mcg/ml). All of the C. glabrata and C. tropicalis isolates for which the micafungin MICs were elevated were found to possess fks gene mutations and were cross-resistant to both anidulafungin and caspofungin, establishing the mutational event as important for both an increase in MIC and clinical failure, i.e., breakthrough infection. Given the data discussed in this review, how then should one use antifungal susceptibility testing results in the care of patients with IC? Guidelines for the use of antifungal susceptibility testing, and other laboratory studies, have been developed (17,86) and are presented in Table 5. Selective application of antifungal susceptibility testing, coupled with broader identification of Candida to the species level, should prove useful especially in difficult to manage cases of IC (52). 18

19 SUMMARY Antifungal susceptibility testing of Candida has benefited greatly from the efforts at standardization conducted by both the CLSI and EUCAST organizations. Progress in refining the CLSI approach to the establishment of CBPs has led to the generation of new speciesspecific CBPs for the triazoles and echinocandins and the major species of Candida. In lieu of CBPs for those agents and species where clinical data is lacking, ECVs have been established which may serve as sensitive markers for the emergence of decreased susceptibility to the agent of interest. In most instances the ECVs have been shown to separate those non-wt strains with acquired or mutational resistance mechanisms from WT strains. The role of antifungal susceptibility testing in the management of patients with IC is now coming into focus and it is clear that such testing can aid in the selection of agents for both primary therapy as well as in a de-escalation strategy. Antifungal susceptibility testing continues to progress and to refine both methods and interpretive capabilities in order to aid in optimizing the care of patients with candidemia. 19

20 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We acknowledge the excellent secretarial support of Caitlin Howard in the preparation of this manuscript Downloaded from on December 9, 2018 by guest 20

21 REFERENCES 1. Alexander, B.D., et al Candida glabrata fungemia in transplant patients receiving voriconazole after fluconazole. Transplantation 80: Arendrup, M.C., and D.W. Denning Does one voriconazole breakpoint suit all Candida species? J. Clin. Microbiol. 45: Arendrup, M.C., et al Breakpoints for susceptibility testing should not divide wildtype distribution of important target species. Antimirob. Agents Chemother. 53: Arendrup, M.C., et al Echinocandin susceptibility testing of Candida spp.: 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: Arendrup, M.C., et al Diagnostic issues, clinical characteristics, and outcomes for patients with fungemia. J. Clin. Microbiol. 49: Armstrong-James, D Invasive Candida species infection: the importence of adequate empirical antifungal therapy. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 60: Arthington-Skaags, B.A., et al Comparison of visual and spectrophotometric methods of broth microdilution MIC endpoint determination and evaluation of a sterol quantitative method for in vitro susceptibility testing of fluconazole and itraconazole against trailing and nontrailing Candida isolates. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 46: Baddley, J.W., et al Utility of real-time antifungal susceptibility testing for fluconazole in the treatment of candidemia. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 50: Baddley, J.W., et al Association of fluconazole pharmacodynamics with mortality in patients with candidemia. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 52:

22 British Society for Mycopathology Laboratory methods for flucytosine (5- fluorocytosine). Report of a Working Group of the British Society for Mycopathology. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 14: Chau, A.G. et al Application of real-time quantitative PCR to molecular analysis of Candida albicans strains exhibiting reduced susceptibility to azoles. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 48: Chen, S.C.A., et al Antifungal therapy in invasive fungal infections. Cum. Opin. Pharmacol. 10: CLSI Reference method for broth dilution antifungal susceptibility testing of yeasts, 3 rd ed. M27-A3. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, Wayne, PA. 14. CLSI Reference method for broth dilution antifungal susceptibility testing of yeasts, 3 rd informational supplement. M27-S3. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, Wayne, PA. 15. Collins, C.D., et al To test or not to test: a cost minimization analysis of susceptibility testing for patients with documented Candida glabrata fungemias. J. Clin. Microbiol. 45: Cuenca-Estrella, M., and J.L. Rodriguez-Tudela The current role of the reference procedures by CLSI and EUCAST in the detection of resistance to antifungal agents in vitro. Expert Rev. Anti Infect. Ther. 8: Diekema, D.J. and M.A. Pfaller Utility of antifungal susceptibility testing and clinical correlations. In G.S. Hall (ed.), Interactions of yeasts, moulds, and antifungal agents: How to detect resistance. Springer. 22

23 Dodgson, A.R., et al Clade-specific flucytosine resistance is due to a single nucleotide change in the FUR1 gene of Candida albicans. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 48: Edlind, T.D., and S.K. Katiyar Mutational analysis of flucytosine resistance in Candida glabrata. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 54: Espinel-Ingroff, A., et al International and multicenter comparison of EUCAST and CLSI M27-A2 broth microdilution methods for testing susceptibilities of Candida spp. to fluconazole, itraconazole, posaconazole, and voriconazole. J. Clin. Microbiol. 43: Espinel-Ingroff, A., et al Comparison of visual 24-hour and spectrophotometric 48-hour MICs to CLSI reference microdilution MICs of fluconazole, itraconazole, posaconazole, and voriconazole for Candida spp.: a collaborative study. J. Clin. Microbiol. 43: Espinel-Ingroff, A., et al Comparison of 24-hour and 48-hour voriconazole MICs as determined by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute broth microdilution method (M27-A3 document) in three laboratories: results obtained with 2,162 clinical isolates of Candida spp. and other yeasts. J. Clin. Microbiol. 47: European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing Subcommittee on Antifungal Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST-AFST) EUCAST technical note on fluconazole. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 14: European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing Subcommittee on Antifungal Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST-AFST) EUCAST technical note on voriconazole. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 14: Florent, M., et al Nonsense and missense mutations in FCY2 and FCY1 genes are responsible for flucytosine resistance and flucytosine-fluconazole cross-resistance 23

24 in clinical isolates of Candida lusitaniae. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 53: Forrest, G Role of antifungal susceptibility testing in patient management. Curr. Opin. Infect. Dis. 19: Garcia-Effron, G., et al A naturally occurring Fks1p proline to alanine amino acid change in Candida parapsilosis, Candida orthopsilosis, and Candida metapsilosis accounts for reduced echinocandin susceptibility. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 52: Garcia-Effron, G., et al Correlating echinocandin MIC and kinetic inhibition of fks 1 mutant glucan synthase for Candida albicans: implications for interpretive breakpoints. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 53: Garcia-Effron, G., et al Effect of Candida glabrata FKS1 and FKS2 mutations on echinocandin sensitivity and kinetics of 1,3-β-D-glucan synthase: implication for existing susceptibility breakpoint. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 53: Garey, K.W., et al Time to initiation of fluconazole therapy impacts mortality in patients with candidemia: a multi-institutional study. Clin. Infect. Dis. 43: Ghannoum, M.A., and L.B. Rice Antifungal agents: mode of action, mechanisms of resistance, and correlation of these mechanisms with bacterial resistance. Clin. Microbiol Rev. 12: Grim, S.A., et al Timing of susceptibility-based antifungal drug administration in patients with Candida bloodstream infection: correlation with outcomes. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. In press. 33. Hadley, S., et al Real-time antifungal susceptibility screening aids management of invasive yeast infections in immunocompromised patients. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 49:

25 Hope, W.W., et al Molecular mechanisms of primary resistance to flucytosine in Candida albicans. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 48: Johnson, E.M Issues in antifungal susceptibility testing. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 61(Suppl. 1): i13-i Kahlmeter, G., et al European harmonization of MIC breakpoints for antimicrobial susceptibility testing of bacteria. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 52: Karthaus, M., et al Current issues in the clinical management of invasive candida infections-the AGIHO, DMykG, ÖGMM and PEG web-based survey and expert consensus conference Mycoses 54: e546-e Law, D., et al Amphotericin B resistance testing of Candida spp.: a comparison of methods. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 40: Lockhart, S.R., et al Validation of 24-hour flucytosine MIC determination by comparison with 48-hour determination by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute M27-A3 broth microdilution reference method. J. Clin. Microbiol. 49: Lopez-Ribot, J.L., et al Distinct patterns of gene expression associated with development of fluconazole resistance in serial Candida albicans isolates from human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients with oropharyngeal candidiasis. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 42: MacCallum, D.M., et al Genetic dissection of azole resistance mechanisms in Candida albicans and their validation in a mouse model of disseminated infection. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 54: Magill, S.S., et al Triazole cross-resistance among Candida spp.: case report, occurrence among bloodstream, isolates, and implications for antifungal therapy. J. Clin. Microbiol. 44:

26 Marr, K.A., et al Development of fluconazole resistance in Candida albicans causing disseminated infection in a patient undergoing marrow transplantation. Clin. Infect. Dis. 25: Marr, K.A., et al Rapid transient fluconazole resistance in Candida albicans is associated with increased m RNA level of CDR. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 42: McManus, B.A., et al A Sec 29 Leu substitution in the cytosine deaminase Fca 1p is responsible for clade-specific flucytosine resistance in Candida dubliniensis. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 53: Mora-Duarte, J., et al Comparison of caspofungin and amphotericin B for invasive candidiasis. N. Engl. J. Med. 347: Mori, T., et al Myelofibrosis complicated by infection due to Candida albicans: emergence of resistance to antifungal agents during therapy. Clin. Infect. Dis. 25: Morrell, M., et al Delaying empiric treatment of Candida bloodstream infection until positive blood culture results are obtained: a potential risk factor for mortality. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 49: Nolte, F.S., et al Isolation and characterization of fluconazole- and amphotericin B-resistant Candida albicans from blood of two patients with leukemia. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 44: Ostrosky-Zeichner, L., et al. Rationale for reading fluconazole MICs at 24 hours rather than 48 hours when testing Candida spp. by the CLSI M27-A2 standard method. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 52: Pakyz, A.L., et al Antifungal use in hospitalized adults in U.S. academic health centers. Am. J. Health-Syst. Pharm. 68: