4.5 Article

The distribution of species and susceptibility of amphotericin B and fluconazole of yeast pathogens isolated from sterile sites in Taiwan

Journal

MEDICAL MYCOLOGY
Volume 48, Issue 2, Pages 328-334

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.3109/13693780903154070

Keywords

yeast; Candida species; TSARY; invasive infections; drug susceptibility

Funding

  1. NHRI [CL-096-PP07]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To study the demographic changes of yeasts causing invasive infections in Taiwan, especially with respect to species distribution and antifungal susceptibility, we analyzed isolates obtained from four sterile sites of patients in 19 hospitals in 2002 (155 strains) and again from the same hospitals in 2006 (208 strains). Blood was the most common source of the yeasts, accounting for 73.8% of the total isolates, followed by ascites (21.5%), cerebrospinal fluid (3%), and synovia (1.7%). Candida albicans was the most frequently recovered species (50.1% of the total), followed by Candida tropicalis (20.7%), Candida glabrata (11.6%), Candida parapsilosis (8.5%), Cryptococcus neoformans (3.9%), Candida krusei (0.8%), and nine other species (4.3%). There were one (0.3%) and seven (1.9%) isolates with minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of amphotericin B >= 2 mg/l after 24 h and 48 h incubation, respectively. In addition, there were 15 (4.3%) and 31 (8.6%) isolates with MICs of fluconazole >= 64 mg/l under the same conditions. The MIC90 value of amphotericin B was 1 mg/l. The MIC90 values of fluconazole were 4 mg/l after 24 h incubation and 32 mg/l after 48 h incubation. Interestingly, MICs for fluconazole >= 64 mg/l after 24 h were significantly higher for isolates obtained in 2006 than those in 2002 after 24 h (7.1% vs. 0.7%, p = 0.009) and 48 h (13.5% vs. 2%, p = 0.0003) incubations. The demographic difference between these two surveys is mainly due to one species, C. tropicalis.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available