Multicenter study of epidemiological cutoff values and detection of resistance in Candida spp. to anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin using the Sensititre YeastOne colorimetric method.

Neither breakpoints (BPs) nor epidemiological cutoff values (ECVs) have been established for Candida spp. with anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin when using the Sensititre YeastOne (SYO) broth dilution colorimetric method. In addition, reference caspofungin MICs have so far proven to be unreliable. Candida species wild-type (WT) MIC distributions (for microorganisms in a species/drug combination with no detectable phenotypic resistance) were established for 6,007 Candida albicans, 186 C. dubliniensis, 3,188 C. glabrata complex, 119 C. guilliermondii, 493 C. krusei, 205 C. lusitaniae, 3,136 C. parapsilosis complex, and 1,016 C. tropicalis isolates. SYO MIC data gathered from 38 laboratories in Australia, Canada, Europe, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa, and the United States were pooled to statistically define SYO ECVs. ECVs for anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin encompassing ≥97.5% of the statistically modeled population were, respectively, 0.12, 0.25, and 0.06 µg/ml for C. albicans, 0.12, 0.25, and 0.03 µg/ml for C. glabrata complex, 4, 2, and 4 µg/ml for C. parapsilosis complex, 0.5, 0.25, and 0.06 µg/ml for C. tropicalis, 0.25, 1, and 0.25 µg/ml for C. krusei, 0.25, 1, and 0.12 µg/ml for C. lusitaniae, 4, 2, and 2 µg/ml for C. guilliermondii, and 0.25, 0.25, and 0.12 µg/ml for C. dubliniensis. Species-specific SYO ECVs for anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin correctly classified 72 (88.9%), 74 (91.4%), 76 (93.8%), respectively, of 81 Candida isolates with identified fks mutations. SYO ECVs may aid in detecting non-WT isolates with reduced susceptibility to anidulafungin, micafungin, and especially caspofungin, since testing the susceptibilities of Candida spp. to caspofungin by reference methodologies is not recommended.

Targeted versus universal antifungal prophylaxis among liver transplant recipients.

Guidelines recommend targeted antifungal prophylaxis for liver transplant (LT) recipients based on tiers of risk, rather than universal prophylaxis. The feasibility and efficacy of tiered, targeted prophylaxis is not well established. We performed a retrospective study of LT recipients who received targeted prophylaxis (n = 145; voriconazole [VORI; 54%], fluconazole [8%], no antifungal [38%]) versus universal VORI prophylaxis (n = 237). Median durations of targeted and universal prophylaxis were 11 and 6 days, respectively (p < 0.0001). The incidence of invasive fungal infections (IFIs) in targeted and universal groups was 6.9% and 4.2% (p = 0.34). Overall, intra-abdominal candidiasis (73%) was the most common IFI. Posttransplant bile leaks (p = 0.001) and living donor transplants (p = 0.04) were independent risk factors for IFI. IFIs occurred in 6% of high-risk transplants who received prophylaxis and 4% of low-risk transplants who did not receive prophylaxis (p = 1.0). Mortality rates (100 days) were 10% (targeted) and 7% (universal) (p = 0.26); attributable mortality due to IFI was 10%. Compliance with prophylaxis recommendations was 97%. Prophylaxis was discontinued for toxicity in 2% of patients. Targeted antifungal prophylaxis in LT recipients was feasible and safe, effectively prevented IFIs and reduced the number of patients exposed to antifungals. Bile leaks and living donor transplants should be considered high-risk indications for prophylaxis.