4.3 Review

Clinical perspectives on echinocandin resistance among Candida species

期刊

CURRENT OPINION IN INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 28, 期 6, 页码 514-522

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/QCO.0000000000000215

关键词

Candida; echinocandin; FKS mutation; resistance; susceptibility testing

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [K08AI114883, R21AI107290]
  2. Astellas
  3. Merck
  4. Pfizer
  5. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs through VA Merit Award [1IO1BX001955]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose of reviewWe review and offer our clinical perspectives on the emergence of echinocandin-resistant Candida.Recent findingsCandida FKS gene mutations attenuate echinocandin activity, but overall mutation rates among clinical isolates remain low (Candida glabrata, approximate to 4%; other species, <1%). Rates are higher with prior echinocandin exposure, exceeding 50% among C. glabrata or Candida albicans isolates causing breakthrough invasive candidiasis. The median duration of prior echinocandin exposure among FKS mutant isolates is approximate to 100 days. The clinical usefulness of echinocandin susceptibility testing is limited by the low overall prevalence of resistance, and uncertainties surrounding testing methods and interpretation of minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs). In single-center studies, caspofungin resistance (defined using institution-specific MIC breakpoints) was 32-53% sensitive and 75-95% specific for predicting treatment outcomes of C. glabrata invasive candidiasis; corresponding values for the presence of an FKS mutation were 35-41% and 90-98%. Results were similar using anidulafungin and micafungin MICs. Clinical data are scarce for non-C. glabrata species.SummaryEchinocandins remain preferred agents against invasive Candida infections. Susceptibility testing and FKS genotypic testing do not have roles in routine clinical practice, but may be useful in newly-diagnosed patients who are echinocandin-experienced or those who have not responded to echinocandin treatment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据