4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Infection and colonisation due to Scedosporium in Northern Spain. An in vitro antifungal susceptibility and molecular epidemiology study of 60 isolates

Journal

MYCOSES
Volume 54, Issue -, Pages 12-21

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1439-0507.2011.02110.x

Keywords

Pseudallescheria; amplified fragment length polymorphism; amphotericin-susceptible Scedosporium prolificans; therapy refractory; genotype

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Since the latest taxonomical changes in the genus Scedosporium by Gilgado et al. in 2010, no species-specific studies on epidemiology and antifungal susceptibility patterns (AFSP) have so far been published. This study aimed to provide qualitative epidemiological data of Scedosporium spp. isolated from cystic fibrosis (CF) patients and immunocompromised patients from Northern Spain. Isolates were identified by using amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP), and species-specific AFSP were generated for all currently available antifungal compounds. AFLP was a useful tool for identification to species-level and for the discrimination of inter-and intra-patient isolates. Scedosporium prolificans represents the most prevalent species in the respiratory tract of CF patients and immunocompromised patients in Northern-Spain, followed by Pseudallescheria boydii, P. apiosperma, and P. ellipsoidea. CF patients were exclusively colonised with either P. boydii or S. prolificans. Patients were colonised over years exclusively with isolates affiliated to one species, but some patients were colonised with multiple strains with different AFSP. The sum of those co-colonising strains in one patient, may appear in vitro and in vivo as a multi-resistant S. prolificans isolate, as strains are morphologically identical and might therefore be regarded as only one strain. A majority of Scedosporium strains (with exception of S. prolificans) were found susceptible for voriconazole and micafungin.

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