Next Article in Journal
Studies on the Properties of the Sporulation Specific Protein Dit1 and Its Product Formyl Tyrosine
Next Article in Special Issue
Molecular Methods for the Diagnosis of Invasive Candidiasis
Previous Article in Journal
Chronic Pulmonary Aspergillosis: Notes for a Clinician in a Resource-Limited Setting Where There Is No Mycologist
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Clinical Usefulness of Susceptibility Breakpoints for Yeasts in the Treatment of Candidemia: A Noninterventional Study

1
Institute of Hygiene and Medical Microbiology, Medical University of Innsbruck, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria
2
Section of Infectious Diseases and Tropical Medicine, Medical University of Graz, 8036 Graz, Austria
3
Division of Clinical Microbiology, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, 1090 Vienna, Austria
4
Department of Medical Statistics, Informatics and Health Economy, Medical University of Innsbruck, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Fungi 2020, 6(2), 76; https://doi.org/10.3390/jof6020076
Submission received: 5 May 2020 / Revised: 28 May 2020 / Accepted: 29 May 2020 / Published: 2 June 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Epidemiology, Diagnosis of Fungal Infections)

Abstract

:
This prospective noninterventional study evaluated whether antifungal susceptibility data (MIC) provided for Candida clinical isolates on the basis of recently established breakpoints are taken into account by clinicians to guide their treatment decision making process, and assessed the response in MIC- and non-MIC-based treatment groups. During a six month period, the usage of systemic antifungals was recorded in detail and compared with mycological data (Candida species and MICs) in candidemia patients. Patients were assigned to a susceptible or resistant infection group based on European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) breakpoints; treatment decisions were under the professional discretion of the treating physicians. 123 patients were evaluated with Candida albicans accounting for 59%, Candida glabrata for 19%, Candida parapsilosis for 15%, Candida tropicalis for 4% and Candida krusei for 3%. Antifungal treatment correlated with species and MICs in 80% (n = 99 patients), high MICs and species-dependent guideline recommendations were ignored in 20% (n = 24 patients); the overall outcome of candidemia cases in our study population was excellent, as by day 14, all patients were cleared from fungal blood stream infection (mean 5.6 days, range 2–12). The current variability in antifungal usage and the delay in initiating appropriate therapy indicate a need for antifungal stewardship to improve the management of invasive fungal infections.

1. Introduction

Candida are the fourth most commonly encountered nosocomial pathogen in bloodstream infections (7–10% of isolates) [1,2]. Invasive candidiasis is associated with attributable mortality rates between 30 and 60%. Although Candida albicans is the predominant species, in recent years, there was a shift toward the isolation of other species, such as C. glabrata, C. tropicalis, C. parapsilosis, and C. krusei [3,4].
Overall, clinical resistance of Candida to established antifungal agents is rare and mostly seen for non-albicans species in critically ill and/or immunocompromised patients [3,4,5]. However, mounting evidence suggests that acquired resistance may be an emerging and underdiagnosed entity. Consequently, in vitro susceptibility testing of Candida isolates has become part of the clinical routine in some clinics to allow for tailored antifungal therapies [6,7].
Both the European Committee of Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) and the United States Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) have developed and standardized broth microdilution methods for the in vitro susceptibility testing of yeasts [8,9]. Clinical cut off values for a variety of Candida species and antifungal agents are published by EUCAST [10]. Pfaller et al. underline the importance of molecular, clinical and microbiological data to meet species-specific criteria [11]. However, as these breakpoints have not been established for the clinical routine until recently, it is presently unclear whether antifungal susceptibility data (MICs) provided on microbiological laboratory reports prompt clinicians to reconsider and change the administered antifungal regimen. Thus, the clinical value of this laboratory information is under debate. Furthermore, the data available indicate that there may be a relationship between in vitro resistance and clinical failure, but not between in vitro susceptible results and therapeutic success [12].
The primary objective of this noninterventional study (NIS) was to evaluate whether antifungal susceptibility data provided for Candida clinical isolates on the basis of recently established breakpoints are taken into account by clinicians to guide their therapeutic decision making process. The secondary objective was to evaluate the response in MIC- and non-MIC-based treatment groups, by assessing the clinical outcome of patients in whom the first-line antifungal drug regimen was maintained despite classifying the causative Candida strain as resistant, and of those in whom the therapy was switched as a direct response to the obtained MIC data provided.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Patient Enrollment and Antifungal Susceptibility Data

This prospective multicenter NIS evaluated the clinical value of MICs and clinical breakpoints in the management of candidemia patients undergoing treatment with systemic antifungals (ethical votum AN2016-0118 363/4.7). The study population consisted of male/female patients at the age > 18 years suffering from documented candidemia requiring systemic antifungal therapy. Proven mycological EORTC/MSG (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer/Mycoses Study Group) criteria were specified as the diagnostic gold standard [13]. Hence, invasive Candida infection was defined as a blood culture that yields yeast cells via microscopy and culture. All fungal isolates obtained were identified to species level by standard laboratory methods and in vitro susceptibility testing was done according to EUCAST. Patients were assigned to a susceptible or resistant infection group based on EUCAST breakpoints [10].
During a six month period, eligible patients were recruited in the order of admittance to the study centers (Institute of Hygiene and Medical Microbiology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Section of Infectious Diseases and Tropical Medicine, Medical University of Graz, and Division of Clinical Microbiology, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Medical University of Vienna), and individuals derived from all hospital units. The decision of antifungal drug and when to use it was made under the professional discretion of the treating physician and followed local guidelines. In each case of positive blood cultures, the treating physician was requested to complete clinical data using a case report form (CRF) and the following case-based information was obtained: Age, gender, medical history, concomitant diseases, outcomes and antifungal treatment medications; the type and location of the Candida infection, the diagnostic methods used, species and MICs. Fungal blood clearance at day 14 defined the resolution of an infection; fungal presence at the site from infection despite antifungal treatment was defined as failure. The patients’ medical data for scientific purposes were processed and analyzed in a pseudonymized form. The species and MIC of the causative Candida isolates and any antifungal treatment given were recorded in detail. At the end of systemic antifungal treatment, the overall response was assessed according to the medical judgment of the physician in charge using the definitions mentioned above. The mycology lab did not explicitly point to prominent species and MICs. Physicians were free to comment the reasons of drug switches; species, MIC, and non-MIC-based treatment modalities were compared independently and matched with antifungals applied.

2.2. Statistical Analyses

A formal sample size calculation was not performed, but a minimum sample size of 100 patients was targeted and the study cohort was grouped according whether or not a switch of antifungals was made on basis of species and susceptibility results for the Candida isolate. We evaluated patients suffering from susceptible and resistant isolates and subsequent treatment. Patients in whom the antifungal therapy was changed because of intolerance, side effects or other reasons were excluded. While all quantitative values were expressed as median (range), absolute and relative frequencies were given for qualitative values. The Kolmogorov–Smirnov test was used for testing for normal distribution. The Mann–Whitney U test and Pearson’s Chi Square test were performed to analyze differences in demographic characteristics and outcome variables. p values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. All statistical analysis was conducted with SPSS Version 25. (IBM Corp. Released 2017. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 25.0. Armonk, NY, USA: IBM Corp.)
Quality controls of data were performed to ensure the accuracy and reliability of data. For this purpose, a person not otherwise involved in the NIS spot checked the CRFs and verified the entries against the source data. All patient data were recorded in paper CRFs, which were specifically designed to meet the data recording requirements of the present NIS.

3. Results

Overall, data from 144 clinical cases were collected; 21 cases were deleted as records were not complete. Hence, full data of 123 patients were evaluated. C. albicans accounted for 59% (n = 72), C. glabrata for 19% (n = 24), C. parapsilosis for 15% (n = 18), C. tropicalis for 4% (n = 5) and C. krusei for 3% (n = 4). Species distribution, MICs and susceptible and resistance classification are given in Table 1.
The study group consisted of 70 male and 53 female patients (mean age 63 years, range 22–91); 61 patients were from ICUs, all patients were non-neutropenic, see Table 2. In all study centers, fungal diagnosis followed the same algorithm, which include the immediate information of any positive fungal growth of yeasts at day 1, followed by species identification and MIC data between days 2 to 3.
Figure 1 gives an overview on patients enrolled, antifungal drugs applied and treatment switches. An amount of 69% (n = 85) of patients received one antifungal drug throughout the treatment course, while 31% (n = 38) underwent a switch. The reasons of drug replacement were multiple and included, among others, step down therapy, adaption to species and MIC, and reporting of “yeast being present in the human specimen”.
A total of 43% (n = 53) of patients were under short-term empirical treatment at time-point of yeasts being detected, as shown in Table 2. Based on the lab information, yeasts growing in the blood culture led to an immediate switch of the existing antifungal drug in 7% (n = 9), and another drug was added in 2% (n = 3). The subsequent shift included the application of echinocandins, liposomal amphotericin B (l-AmB), and isavuconazole (ISA), despite not knowing the species and MICs at that moment. In 18% (n = 22) antifungal treatment started only when species and MIC were available, hence treatment started rather late. Overall, antifungal treatment was conform to species and MICs in 80% (n = 99 cases) of cases; high MICs and species-dependent guideline recommendations were ignored in 20% (n = 24 cases) of cases, as shown in Table 3; and another third or fourth switch was made in eight patients for various clinical reasons, including two cases of C. albicans candidemia and low MICs. Overall, the outcome of candidemia cases in our study population was excellent, as by day 14, all patients (n = 123) were clear of fungal blood stream infections (mean 5.6 days, range 2–12), independent of antifungal treatment applied and species involved. The eight cases with multiple drug switches suffered from C. parapsilosis (n = 4), C. albicans (n = 2), C. krusei (n = 2).
The statistical analyses showed that there was no difference in outcome based on empirical or targeted therapy (p = 0.881), MIC based treatment (p = 0.713), resistant or susceptible fungal categorization (p = 0.744), species involved (p = 0.570), switch to any antifungal (p = 0.187), sex (p = 0.259), age (p = 0.880), or ICU admittance (p = 0.744), as shown in Table 4.

4. Discussion

The present NIS is the first report documenting that antifungal treatment is in agreement with underlying species and MICs in 80% of cases. This multicenter study showed a high frequency of antifungal drug switches during the course of candidemia treatment. MIC- and non-MIC-based antifungal treatment regimens showed no significant difference in outcome, as all patients resulted in fungal free blood cultures after 14 days of antifungal therapy.
The frequency of Candida species causing candidemia depends on predisposing patients’ conditions, on antifungal agents prescribed, and local hospital-related factors being present [14]. In line with other reports, the most important species in our study were C. albicans, C. glabrata, and C. parapsilosis. 95% of C. parapsilosis and 100% of C. glabrata were documented to be resistant against anidulafungin and fluconazole, respectively.
The majority of patients (66%) received an echinocandin as first-line treatment, following the current guideline of the European Society for Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) [15]. An amount of 28% started with fluconazole, which clearly contrasts with the ESCMID guideline [15] but supports IDSA recommendations [16]. The echinocandins have emerged as preferred agents for candidemia and invasive candidiasis, with some exceptions. This recommendation is based on a good safety profile, a trend toward better outcome data, and the emergence of azole-resistant Candida species. Neither ESCMID [15] nor IDSA guidelines [16] differentiate between the three available echinocandins in their treatment recommendations.
Three major findings from this NIS were novel and of great surprise for us; first, the notification of a yeast being present in the blood culture prompted clinicians to change the present empirical antifungal treatment (mean 3.5 days, range 2–9); in the majority of cases, fluconazole was replaced by an echinocandin, or an additional antifungal was added, despite not knowing the species at that time-point. We speculate that clinicians interpreted the growth of yeasts as a failure of the underlying empirical treatment. Second, 22 patients received an antifungal treatment only after species identification and MICs were reported by the microbiology lab; which in turn means that antifungal treatment starts late in the course of candidemia. It is well known that the delayed administration of any antifungal treatment among patients with Candida bloodstream infections is associated with greater hospital mortality [17]. Third, species and MIC- based treatment regimens may only have a marginal influence on the outcome of candidemia; in our study, patients were successfully treated with fluconazole (high dosing, 10 mg/kg/body weight) even with the presence of fluconazole-resistant C. glabrata, which is in line with Eschenauer et al. who recommend a high dose of fluconazole for the treatment of C. glabrata infections, irrespective of MICs [18]. Ghanem-Zoubi et al. underline the need for high dosing in patients infected with high MIC-Candida species [19]. C. parapsilosis cleared well from blood stream infections under echinocandin therapy and finally, despite anidulafungin resistance being present, treatment with anidulafungin or with another echinocandin was successful after 14 days of therapy. Our data are supported by Kontoyiannis et al. [20], who showed that anidulafungin is effective for the treatment of C. parapsilosis candidemia; in addition, Wu et al. [21], demonstrated a lower 30-day mortality rate for C. parapsilosis when compared to C. albicans candidemia. During the study period, eight patients underwent another third or fourth antifungal drug switch, however these patients were finally clear of the yeasts within 14 days of observation. The latter group included two cases with C. albicans candidemia. Antifungal step down management or de-escalation treatment based on species was rarely implemented in our study population with the reason of them not being well understood. The reporting of susceptible strains led to no antifungal changes in the majority of patients.
Up to now, no single trial has demonstrated clear superiority of one therapeutic agent over another in candidemia, and careful analysis of clinical data sometimes leads to conflicting conclusions [22,23,24]. These facts may also explain the inconsistent approach of species and MIC-guided treatment in invasive fungal infections.
The notification of species and MICs of any underlying fungal pathogen should support treatment adjustment according to in vitro data. Hence, ESCMID as well as IDSA guideline recommend not to treat C. parapsilosis infections with an echinocandin; C. parapsilosis demonstrates innately higher MICs to the echinocandins than most other Candida species, which raises the concern that C. parapsilosis may be less responsive to the echinocandins [15,16]. In our dataset, 95% of C. parapsilosis strains were designated to be in vitro resistant. The same is valid for fluconazole and C. glabrata; however, the experience of this NIS was that the influence of MICs on overall outcome may be low. A total of 20% of patients (n = 24 patients) enrolled were not treated according to these recommendations, but controversially the outcome was quite good. These outcome data are potentially grounded by the fact that the majority of patients were not severely ill, and as we included patients from all wards, only 49% were from the ICU. Table 3 gives detailed information on responsible fungal pathogens involved and treatment regimens applied. Several unresolved questions exist; however, the patients’ well-being led the treating physicians not to change the underlying drug management. It remains unclear whether adherence to current ESCMID guidelines would have impacted on the patients’ outcome. So far, it seems that susceptibility testing data have value, but far less than what was thought. Similar data were observed by Ghrenassia et al. [25], who assessed the outcome of candidemia in clinically ill patients. Our findings are supported by the 90-60 rule which underlines that infections due to susceptible and resistant isolates respond to appropriate therapy in ~90% and ~60%, respectively [26]. Various other factors may influence the outcome (e.g., drug pharmacokinetics, drug delivery to the site of infection, treatment of the site of infection, host response) [27,28], and it is obvious how one or more of these aspects might outweigh the impact of MIC results. Susceptibility data could point out that a single MIC measurement is not sufficiently precise to warrant the outcome, or that clinical breakpoints do not sufficiently reflect the complex in vivo situations. Contrasting data are shown by Ko, [29] et al., displaying increased fluconazole MICs being associated with a poor outcome. However, the authors do not comment on fluconazole dosing (high or standard) regimens applied.
Due to the limited cases, we cannot comment on whether the various echinocandins display a different outcome in terms of MICs and C. parapsilosis; these three lipopeptides were multiply applied as second-line treatment, irrespective of anidulafungin resistance being present or not (Table 3).
Testing for azole susceptibility is recommended for all bloodstream and other clinically relevant Candida isolates, and testing for echinocandin susceptibility should be considered in patients who had prior treatment with an echinocandin and among those who have infection with C. glabrata or C. parapsilosis. Reflecting the clinical problem, IDSA declared this advice with a strong recommendation but a low-quality of evidence, [16] and our study data may support this main message. The superior outcome of C. glabrata and fluconazole treatment in our study may be related to the fact that the highest dosing of fluconazole was applied in all patients.
Limitations of this study are the small number of patients infected with drug-resistant yeasts, an underlying heterogeneous patient population with lack of severely ill patients, and not taking into account catheter exchanges. Non-neutropenic patients who have candidemia may clear from fungal bloodstream infections immediately after catheter removal [30,31]; in addition, early Central venous catheter withdrawal was associated with 30-day mortality [32]. Our key message is that all of our patients investigated fall into this classification; hence in the future, a greater sample size is required to determine more reliably the association of species distribution and MICs in the outcome of antifungal treatment.
In conclusion, antifungal treatment was 80% correlated with species and MICs. The variability of antifungal drug use and the delay in initiating appropriate therapy (20%) indicate a need for antifungal stewardship in order to improve the management of invasive fungal infections. Important questions of how to best implement MIC data into the clinical routine remain unanswered and require further clinical studies.

Author Contributions

Supervision, C.L.-F.; funding acquisition, C.L.-F.; conceptualization, C.L.-F. and M.A.; Methodology, C.L.-F., M.A. and P.K.; software, P.K. and S.N.; formal analysis, P.K. and S.N.; data curation, M.A., P.D., R.K., B.W. and P.S.; writing—original draft preparation, C.L.-F.; writing—review and editing, C.L.F., M.A., B.W. and R.K.; project administration, P.D.; All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported in part by CD Laboratory for Invasive Fungal Infections.

Conflicts of Interest

C.L.-F. has received financial support (travel/accommodations/meeting, expenses/payment for lectures, consultancies) from Gilead Sciences, Astellas Pharma, Pfizer, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Basilea. M.A. has received travel grants honorarium as a speaker and consultancy fee from Astellas Pharma, MSD, Gilead. B.W. has received financial support (travel/accommodations/meeting, expenses/payment for lectures, consultancies) from Gilead Sciences, Astellas Pharma, Pfizer, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Basilea. R.K. received research grants from Merck and Pfizer and served on the speakers’ bureau of Pfizer, Gilead, Astellas, Basilea, Merck and Angelini. S.N., P.K. and P.D. have no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Wisplinghoff, H.; Bischoff, T.; Tallent, S.M.; Seifert, H.; Wenzel, R.P.; Edmond, M.B. Nosocomial Bloodstream Infections in US Hospitals: Analysis of 24,179 Cases from a Prospective Nationwide Surveillance Study. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2004, 39, 309–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Luzzaro, F.; Ortisi, G.; LaRosa, M.; Drago, M.; Brigante, G.; Gesu, G. Prevalence and epidemiology of microbial pathogens causing bloodstream infections: Results of the OASIS multicenter study. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2011, 69, 363–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Eggimann, P.; Garbino, J.; Pittet, D. Epidemiology of Candida species infections in critically ill non-immunosuppressed patients. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2003, 3, 685–702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Pfaller, M.A.; Andes, D.R.; Diekema, D.; Horn, D.L.; Reboli, A.C.; Rotstein, C.; Franks, B.; Azie, N.E. Epidemiology and Outcomes of Invasive Candidiasis Due to Non-albicans Species of Candida in 2496 Patients: Data from the Prospective Antifungal Therapy (PATH) Registry. PLOS ONE 2014, 9, e101510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Wisplinghoff, H.; Ebbers, J.; Geurtz, L.; Stefanik, D.; Major, Y.; Edmond, M.B.; Wenzel, R.P.; Seifert, H. Nosocomial bloodstream infections due to Candida spp. in the USA: Species distribution, clinical features and antifungal susceptibilities. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2014, 43, 78–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Posteraro, B.; Sanguinetti, M. The future of fungal susceptibility testing. Futur. Microbiol. 2014, 9, 947–967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Weiler, S.; Lass-Flörl, C.; Auberger, J.; Bellmann-Weiler, R.; Stein, M.; Joannidis, M.; Bellmann, R. Triazole-resistant candidaemia following posaconazole exposure. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2009, 33, 494–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Subcommittee on Antifungal Susceptibility Testing of the ESCMID European Committee for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. Method for the determination of broth dilution MICs of antifungal agents for fermentative yeasts. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2008, 14, 398–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Epidemiological Cutoff Values for Antifungal Susceptibility Testing, 2nd ed.; CLSI: Wayne, PA, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  10. European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. Antifungal Agents. Breakpoint Tables for Interpretation of MICs. Available online: http://www.eucast.org/clinical_breakpoints/ (accessed on 16 November 2015).
  11. Pfaller, M.A.; Diekema, D.; Andes, D.; Arendrup, M.C.; Brown, S.; Lockhart, S.; Motyl, M.; Perlin, D.S. 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. 2011, 14, 164–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Rex, J.H.; Pfaller, M.A.; Walsh, T.J.; Chaturvedi, V.; Espinel-Ingroff, A.; Ghannoum, M.A.; Gosey, L.L.; Odds, F.C.; Rinaldi, M.G.; Sheehan, D.J.; et al. Antifungal Susceptibility Testing: Practical Aspects and Current Challenges. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2001, 14, 643–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. De Pauw, B.; Walsh, T.J.; Donnelly, J.P.; Stevens, D.A.; Edwards, J.E.; Calandra, T.; Pappas, P.G.; Maertens, J.; Lortholary, O.; Kauffman, C.A.; et al. Revised definitions of invasive fungal disease from the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer/Invasive Fungal Infections Cooperative Group and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Mycoses Study Group (EORTC/MSG) Consensus Group. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2008, 46, 1813–1821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Lausch, K.R.; Søgaard, M.; Rosenvinge, F.; Johansen, H.; Boysen, T.; Røder, B.; Mortensen, K.L.; Nielsen, L.; Lemming, L.; Olesen, B.; et al. High incidence of candidaemia in a nationwide cohort: Underlying diseases, risk factors and mortality. Int. J. Infect. Dis. 2018, 76, 58–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Rammaert, B.; Puyade, M.; Cornely, O.A.; Seidel, D.; Grossi, P.; Husain, S.; Picard, C.; Lass-Flörl, C.; Manuel, O.; Le Pavec, J.; et al. Perspectives on Scedosporium species and Lomentospora prolificans in lung transplantation: Results of an international practice survey from ESCMID fungal infection study group and study group for infections in compromised hosts, and European Confederation of Medical Mycology. Transpl. Infect. Dis. 2019, 21, e13141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Pappas, P.G.; Kauffman, C.A.; Andes, D.R.; Clancy, C.J.; A Marr, K.; Ostrosky-Zeichner, L.; Reboli, A.; Schuster, M.G.; A Vazquez, J.; Walsh, T.J.; et al. Executive Summary: Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Candidiasis: 2016 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2016, 62, 409–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  17. Epelbaum, O.; Chasan, R. Candidemia in the Intensive Care Unit. Clin. Chest Med. 2017, 38, 493–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. A Eschenauer, G.; Carver, P.L.; Patel, T.S.; Lin, S.-W.; Klinker, K.P.; Pai, M.P.; Lam, S.W. Survival in Patients with Candida glabrata Bloodstream Infection Is Associated with Fluconazole Dose. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2018, 62, e02566-17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Ghanem-Zoubi, N.; Qasum, M.; Khoury, J.; Zorbavel, D.; Arnon, M.; Geffen, Y.; Paul, M. The association between fluconazole dose and MIC with mortality and persistence in candidemia. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2019, 38, 1773–1780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Kontoyiannis, D.P.; Bassetti, M.; Nucci, M.; Capparella, M.R.; Yan, J.L.; Aram, J.; Hogan, P.A. Anidulafungin for the treatment of candidaemia caused by Candida parapsilosis: Analysis of pooled data from six prospective clinical studies. Mycoses 2017, 60, 663–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Wu, Y.-M.; Huang, C.-T.; Lu, J.-J.; Shie, S.-S.; Ye, J.-J.; Wu, T.-S.; Huang, C.-T. Risk factors and outcomes of candidemia caused by Candida parapsilosis complex in a medical center in northern Taiwan. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2018, 90, 44–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Choi, H.; Kim, J.H.; Seong, H.; Lee, W.; Jeong, W.; Ahn, J.Y.; Jeong, S.J.; Ku, N.S.; Yeom, J.S.; Kim, Y.K.; et al. Changes in the utilization patterns of antifungal agents, medical cost and clinical outcomes of candidemia from the health-care benefit expansion to include newer antifungal agents. Int. J. Infect. Dis. 2019, 83, 49–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Su, H.-C.; Hua, Y.-M.; Feng, I.-J.; Wu, H.-C. Comparative effectiveness of antifungal agents in patients with hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Infect. Drug Resist. 2019, 12, 1311–1324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Fernández-Ruiz, M.; Lora-Pablos, D.; Puig-Asensio, M.; Padilla, B.; Munoz, P.; Guinea, J.; Pardo, J.R.P.; García-Rodríguez, J.; Cerrada, C.G.; Fortun, J.; et al. Initial Use of Echinocandins Does Not Negatively Influence Outcome in Candida parapsilosis Bloodstream Infection: A Propensity Score Analysis. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2014, 58, 1413–1421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Ghrenassia, E.; Mokart, D.D.; Mayaux, J.; Demoule, A.; Rezine, I.; Kerhuel, L.; Calvet, L.; De Jong, A.; Azoulay, E.; Darmon, M. Candidemia in critically ill immunocompromised patients: Report of a retrospective multicenter cohort study. Ann. Intensiv. Care 2019, 9, 62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Rex, J.H.; Pfaller, M.A. Has antifungal susceptibility testing come of age? Clin. Infect Dis. 2002, 35, 982–989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Hesstvedt, L.; Gaustad, P.; Müller, F.; Andersen, C.T.; Brunborg, C.; Mylvaganam, H.; Leiva, R.A.; Berdal, J.E.; Ranheim, T.E.; Johnsen, B.O.; et al. The impact of age on risk assessment, therapeutic practice and outcome in candidemia. Infect. Dis. 2019, 51, 425–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Lortholary, O.; Renaudat, C.; Sitbon, K.; Desnos-Ollivier, M.; Bretagne, S.; Dromer, F. French Mycoses Study Group The risk and clinical outcome of candidemia depending on underlying malignancy. Intensiv. Care Med. 2017, 43, 652–662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Ko, J.-H.; Peck, K.R.; Jung, D.S.; Lee, J.-Y.; Kim, H.A.; Ryu, S.Y.; Jung, S.-I.; Joo, E.-J.; Cheon, S.; Kim, Y.-S.; et al. Impact of high MIC of fluconazole on outcomes of Candida glabrata bloodstream infection: A retrospective multicenter cohort study. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2018, 92, 127–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Barchiesi, F.; Orsetti, E.; Osimani, P.; Catassi, C.; Santelli, F.; Manso, E. Factors related to outcome of bloodstream infections due to Candida parapsilosis complex. BMC Infect. Dis. 2016, 16, 387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Vena, A.; Bouza, E.; Valerio, M.; Padilla, B.; Paño-Pardo, J.R.; Fernández-Ruiz, M.; Martín, A.D.; Salavert, M.; Mularoni, A.; Puig-Asensio, M.; et al. Candidemia in non-ICU surgical wards: Comparison with medical wards. PLOS ONE 2017, 12, e0185339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. González-Lara, M.F.; Torres-Gonzalez, P.; Cornejo-Juárez, P.; Velázquez-Acosta, C.; Martinez-Gamboa, A.; Rangel-Cordero, A.; Valle, M.B.-D.; Ostrosky-Zeichner, L.; Ponce-De-León, A.; Sifuentes-Osornio, J. Impact of inappropriate antifungal therapy according to current susceptibility breakpoints on Candida bloodstream infection mortality, a retrospective analysis. BMC Infect. Dis. 2017, 17, 753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Figure 1. Flow chart of patients with proven candidiasis and antifungal treatment.
Figure 1. Flow chart of patients with proven candidiasis and antifungal treatment.
Jof 06 00076 g001
Table 1. Candida species and susceptibility classification (%) according to EUCAST guideline [10].
Table 1. Candida species and susceptibility classification (%) according to EUCAST guideline [10].
SpeciesNumberAnidulafunginFluconazoleVoriconazolePosaconazoleAmphotericin B
SRSRSRSRSR
C. albicans72964100010009551000
C. glabrata2410000100802045551000
C. parapsilosis18595782210009461000
C. tropicalis510001000100010001000
C. krusei410000100100050501000
S, susceptible strains expressed in %; R, resistant strains expressed in %.
Table 2. Demographic and clinical characteristics of 123 patients with proven yeasts infections receiving antifungal therapy.
Table 2. Demographic and clinical characteristics of 123 patients with proven yeasts infections receiving antifungal therapy.
VariablesNumber of Patients (%)
Demographic parameters
Age, rangeMedian 63 years, range 22–91
Male gender70 (75%)
Medical ward39 (32%)
Surgical ward62 (50%)
Others22 (18%)
ICU stay (overall)61 (49%)
Treatment
Empirical treatment53 (43%)
Antifungal drugs used as first-line treatment
 Caspofungin38 (31%)
 Fluconazole35 (28%)
 Anidulafungin31 (25%)
 Micafungin12 (10%)
 Voriconazole5 (4%)
 Posaconazole1 (1%)
 Fluconazole and Flucytosine1 (1%)
Days until fungal clearanceMedian 5.6 days, range 2–12
Outcome
14-day fungal free blood cultures123 (100%)
Table 3. Antifungal treatment modalities and species and MIC values provided at the study centers.
Table 3. Antifungal treatment modalities and species and MIC values provided at the study centers.
Species
(Patients)
Antifungal Drug ResistancePrimary Therapy
(Patients)
Antifungal Switch14-Day Fungal Free Blood CulturesOpen Questions Based on International Guideline Recommendations and Candida Species and MIC Values Reported
C. albicans
(n = 3)
ANICASMICA & l-AmB
ISA
The switch from CAS to MICA is unclear?
CASThe application of ISA, which is not licensed for Candida therapy is unclear?
CASThe application of CAS despite ANI resistance is unclear?
C. glabrata
(n = 14)
FLU
ANI
FLU (7)FLU & ANI
CAS
The application of FLU in C. glabrata and FLU resistance being present is unclear?
FLUWhy not stopping FLU when adding ANI?
ANIWhy a change from ANI to CAS in such case?
ANI (5)The application of ANI despite ANI resistance being present is unclear?
C. parapsilosis
(n = 6)
ANI
ANI/FLU
FLU
CASMICAThe switch from CAS to MICA despite ANI resistance being present is unclear?
ANI (2)ANI treatment despite ANI resistance being present?
CASCAS therapy despite ANI resistance?
CASWhy CAS therapy despite ANI resistance?
FLUThe application of FLU despite FLU resistance being present is unclear?
C. krusei
(n = 1)
FLUMICACASWhy change from MIC to CAS in case of FLU resistance being present?
ANI, anidulafungin; CAS, caspofungin, MICA, micafungin; ISA, isavuconazole; FLU, fluconazole; l-AmB, liposomal amphotericin B.
Table 4. Univariate analyses of 14-day fungal free blood cultures elated to the various treatment variables.
Table 4. Univariate analyses of 14-day fungal free blood cultures elated to the various treatment variables.
VariablesUnivariate p Value
Age0.880
Gender0.259
Empirical treatment0.881
Targeted treatment0.881
MIC (antifungal susceptibility data)-correlated treatment0.713
MIC-non-correlated treatment0.867
Antifungal drug switch0.187
Intensive care unit0.744
Candida species involved0.570
Resistant isolates involved0.721
Susceptible isolates involved0.657

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Lass-Flörl, C.; Krause, R.; Willinger, B.; Starzengruber, P.; Decristoforo, P.; Neururer, S.; Kreidl, P.; Aigner, M. Clinical Usefulness of Susceptibility Breakpoints for Yeasts in the Treatment of Candidemia: A Noninterventional Study. J. Fungi 2020, 6, 76. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof6020076

AMA Style

Lass-Flörl C, Krause R, Willinger B, Starzengruber P, Decristoforo P, Neururer S, Kreidl P, Aigner M. Clinical Usefulness of Susceptibility Breakpoints for Yeasts in the Treatment of Candidemia: A Noninterventional Study. Journal of Fungi. 2020; 6(2):76. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof6020076

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lass-Flörl, Cornelia, Robert Krause, Birgit Willinger, Peter Starzengruber, Petra Decristoforo, Sabrina Neururer, Peter Kreidl, and Maria Aigner. 2020. "Clinical Usefulness of Susceptibility Breakpoints for Yeasts in the Treatment of Candidemia: A Noninterventional Study" Journal of Fungi 6, no. 2: 76. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof6020076

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop