Cargando…

Antifungal Resistance among Less Prevalent Candida Non-albicans and Other Yeasts versus Established and under Development Agents: A Literature Review

Fungal diseases and antifungal resistance continue to increase, including those caused by rare or emerging species. However, the majority of the published in vitro susceptibility data are for the most common fungal species. We reviewed the literature in order to pool reference minimal inhibitory con...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Espinel-Ingroff, Ana, Cantón, Emilia, Pemán, Javier
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7824324/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33406771
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jof7010024
_version_ 1783640049469882368
author Espinel-Ingroff, Ana
Cantón, Emilia
Pemán, Javier
author_facet Espinel-Ingroff, Ana
Cantón, Emilia
Pemán, Javier
author_sort Espinel-Ingroff, Ana
collection PubMed
description Fungal diseases and antifungal resistance continue to increase, including those caused by rare or emerging species. However, the majority of the published in vitro susceptibility data are for the most common fungal species. We reviewed the literature in order to pool reference minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) data (Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute—CLSI and European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility—EUCAST) for rare/non-prevalent Candida and other yeast species. MIC results were compared with those for Candida albicans, C. glabrata, and C. krusei. Data were listed for twenty rare and emerging Candida spp., including C. auris, as well as two Cryptococcus spp., two Trichosporon spp., Saccharomyces cerevisiae and five Malassezia spp. The best detectors of antimicrobial resistance are the breakpoints, which are not available for the less common Candida species. However, epidemiological cutoff values (ECVs/ECOFFs) have been calculated using merely in vitro data for both reference methods for various non-prevalent yeasts and recently the CLSI has established ECVs for other Candida species. The ECV could identify the non-wild type (NWT or mutants) isolates with known resistance mechanisms. Utilizing these ECVs, we were able to report additional percentages of NWT, especially for non-prevalent species, by analyzing the MIC distributions in the literature. In addition, since several antifungal drugs are under development, we are listing MIC data for some of these agents.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7824324
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-78243242021-01-24 Antifungal Resistance among Less Prevalent Candida Non-albicans and Other Yeasts versus Established and under Development Agents: A Literature Review Espinel-Ingroff, Ana Cantón, Emilia Pemán, Javier J Fungi (Basel) Review Fungal diseases and antifungal resistance continue to increase, including those caused by rare or emerging species. However, the majority of the published in vitro susceptibility data are for the most common fungal species. We reviewed the literature in order to pool reference minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) data (Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute—CLSI and European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility—EUCAST) for rare/non-prevalent Candida and other yeast species. MIC results were compared with those for Candida albicans, C. glabrata, and C. krusei. Data were listed for twenty rare and emerging Candida spp., including C. auris, as well as two Cryptococcus spp., two Trichosporon spp., Saccharomyces cerevisiae and five Malassezia spp. The best detectors of antimicrobial resistance are the breakpoints, which are not available for the less common Candida species. However, epidemiological cutoff values (ECVs/ECOFFs) have been calculated using merely in vitro data for both reference methods for various non-prevalent yeasts and recently the CLSI has established ECVs for other Candida species. The ECV could identify the non-wild type (NWT or mutants) isolates with known resistance mechanisms. Utilizing these ECVs, we were able to report additional percentages of NWT, especially for non-prevalent species, by analyzing the MIC distributions in the literature. In addition, since several antifungal drugs are under development, we are listing MIC data for some of these agents. MDPI 2021-01-04 /pmc/articles/PMC7824324/ /pubmed/33406771 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jof7010024 Text en © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Review
Espinel-Ingroff, Ana
Cantón, Emilia
Pemán, Javier
Antifungal Resistance among Less Prevalent Candida Non-albicans and Other Yeasts versus Established and under Development Agents: A Literature Review
title Antifungal Resistance among Less Prevalent Candida Non-albicans and Other Yeasts versus Established and under Development Agents: A Literature Review
title_full Antifungal Resistance among Less Prevalent Candida Non-albicans and Other Yeasts versus Established and under Development Agents: A Literature Review
title_fullStr Antifungal Resistance among Less Prevalent Candida Non-albicans and Other Yeasts versus Established and under Development Agents: A Literature Review
title_full_unstemmed Antifungal Resistance among Less Prevalent Candida Non-albicans and Other Yeasts versus Established and under Development Agents: A Literature Review
title_short Antifungal Resistance among Less Prevalent Candida Non-albicans and Other Yeasts versus Established and under Development Agents: A Literature Review
title_sort antifungal resistance among less prevalent candida non-albicans and other yeasts versus established and under development agents: a literature review
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7824324/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33406771
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jof7010024
work_keys_str_mv AT espinelingroffana antifungalresistanceamonglessprevalentcandidanonalbicansandotheryeastsversusestablishedandunderdevelopmentagentsaliteraturereview
AT cantonemilia antifungalresistanceamonglessprevalentcandidanonalbicansandotheryeastsversusestablishedandunderdevelopmentagentsaliteraturereview
AT pemanjavier antifungalresistanceamonglessprevalentcandidanonalbicansandotheryeastsversusestablishedandunderdevelopmentagentsaliteraturereview