Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-s22k5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-12T21:37:11.101Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Susceptibilities of Candida Species to Amphotericin B and Fluconazole: The Emergence of Fluconazole Resistance in Candida tropicalis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Yun-Liang Yang ,
Yong-An Ho ,
Hsiao-Hsu Cheng ,
Monto Ho  and
Hsiu-Jung Lo
Yun-Liang Yang
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Science and Technology, National Chiao Tung University, Hsinchu
Yong-An Ho
Affiliation:
Division of Clinical Research, National Health Research Institutes, Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China
Hsiao-Hsu Cheng
Affiliation:
Division of Clinical Research, National Health Research Institutes, Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China
Monto Ho
Affiliation:
Division of Clinical Research, National Health Research Institutes, Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China
Hsiu-Jung Lo*
Affiliation:
Division of Clinical Research, National Health Research Institutes, Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China
*
Division of Clinical Research, National Health Research Institutes, 128, Yen-Chiu-Yuan Road, Section 2, Taipei, 11529, Taiwan, Republic of China
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

To determine the susceptibilities of Candida species isolated from Taiwan to amphotericin B and fluconazole.

Design:

Prospective surveillance study.

Methods:

Each hospital was asked to submit up to 10 C. albicans and 40 non-albicans Candida species during the collection period, from April 15 to June 15, 1999. One isolate was accepted from each episode of infection. The broth microdilution method was used to determine susceptibilities to amphotericin B and fluconazole.

Results:

Only 3 of 632 isolates, one each of C. famata, C. krusei, and C. tropicalis, were resistant to amphotericin B. A total of 53 (8.4%) of 632 clinical yeast isolates, consisting of 4% C. albicans, 8% C. glabrata, 15% C. tropicalis, and 70% C. krusei, were resistant to fluconazole. In contrast, no C. parapsilosis isolate was resistant to fluconazole. Isolates from tertiary-care medical centers had higher rates of resistance to fluconazole than did those from regional and local hospitals (11.4% vs 6.6%). Isolates from different sources showed different levels of susceptibility to fluconazole. All of the isolates with the exception of C. tropicalis and C. krusei isolated from blood were susceptible to fluconazole. A pattern of co-resistance to both amphotericin B and fluconazole was observed.

Conclusions:

Non-albicans Candida species had higher rates of resistance to fluconazole than did C. albicans (44 of 395 [11.2%] vs 9 of 237 [3.8%]; P = .002). The increasing rate of fluconazole resistance in C. tropicalis (15%) is important because C. tropicalis is one of the most commonly isolated non-albicans Candida species.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 25 , Issue 1 , January 2004 , pp. 60 - 64
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Pfaller, MA, Jones, RN, Messer, SA, Edmond, MB, Wenzel, RP, SCOPE Participant Group. National surveillance of nosocomial blood stream infection due to species of Candida other than Candida albicans: frequency of occurrence and antifungal susceptibility in the SCOPE Program. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 1998;30:121–129.Google Scholar
2.Beck-Sague, C, Jarvis, WR. Secular trends in the epidemiology of nosocomial fungal infections in the United States, 1980-1990: National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System. J Infect Dis 1993;167:1247–1251.Google Scholar
3.Chen, YC, Chang, SC, Sun, CC, Yang, LS, Hsieh, WC, Luh, KT. Secular trends in the epidemiology of nosocomial fungal infections at a teaching hospital in Taiwan, 1981 to 1993. Infect Contrat Hosp Epidemiol 1997;18:369–375.Google Scholar
4.Hung, CC, Chen, YC, Chang, SC, Luh, KT, Hsieh, WC. Nosocomial candidemia in a university hospital in Taiwan. J Formos Med Assoc 1996;95:19–28.Google Scholar
5.White, TC, Marr, KA, Bowden, RA. Clinical, cellular, and molecular factors that contribute to antifungal drug resistance. Clin Microbiol Rev 1998;11:382–402.Google Scholar
6.Vanden Bossche, H, Marichal, P, Odds, FC. Molecular mechanisms of drug resistance in fungi. Trends Microbiol 1994;2:393–400.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Law, D, Moore, CB, Wardle, HM, Ganguli, LA, Keaney, MG, Denning, DW. High prevalence of antifungal resistance in Candida spp. from patients with AIDS. J Antimicrob Chemother 1994;34:659–668.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Patel, R, Portela, D, Badley, AD, et al.Risk factors of invasive Candida and non-Candida fungal infections after liver transplantation. Transplantation 1996;62:926–934.Google Scholar
9.Hadfield, TL, Smith, MB, Winn, RE, Rinaldi, MG, Guerra, C. Mycoses caused by Candida lusitaniae. Rev Infect Dis 1987;9:1006–1012.Google Scholar
10.Orozco, AS, Higginbotham, LM, Hitchcock, CA, et al.Mechanism of fluconazole resistance in Candida krusei. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1998;42:2645–2649.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Piemonte, P, Conte, G, Flores, C, et al.Emergence of fluconazole-resistant infections by Candida krusei and Candida glabrata in neutropenic patients. Rev Med Chil 1996;124:1149.Google Scholar
12.Akova, M, Akalin, HE, Uzun, O, Gur, D. Emergence of Candida krusei infections after therapy of oropharyngeal candidiasis with fluconazole. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1991;10:598–599.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Prasad, KN, Agarwal, J, Dixit, AK, Tiwari, DP, Dhole, TN, Ayyagari, A. Róle of yeasts as nosocomial pathogens and their susceptibility to fluconazole and amphotericin B. Indian J Med Res 1999;110:11–17.Google ScholarPubMed
14.Pfaller, MA, Jones, RN, Doern, GV, et al.Bloodstream infections due to Candida species: SENTRY antimicrobial surveillance program in North America and Latin America, 1997-1998. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2000;44:747–751.Google Scholar
15.Wingard, JR, Merz, WG, Saral, R. Candida tropicalis: a major pathogen in immunocompromised patients. Ann Intern Med 1979;91:539–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Graybill, JR, Najvar, LK, Holmberg, JD, Luther, MF. Fluconazole, D0870, and flucytosine treatment of disseminated Candida tropicalis infections in mice. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1995;39:924–929.Google Scholar
17.Barchiesi, F, Calabrese, D, Sanglard, D, et al.Experimental induction of fluconazole resistance in Candida tropicalis ATCC 750. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2000;44:1578–1584.Google Scholar
18.Baran, J Jr, Klauber, E, Barczak, J, Riederer, K, Khatib, R. Trends in antifungal susceptibility among Candida sp. urinary isolates from 1994 and 1998. J Clin Microbiol 2000;38:870–871.Google Scholar
19.St. Germain, G, Laverdiere, M, Pelletier, R, et al.Prevalence and antifungal susceptibility of 442 Candida isolates from blood and other normally sterile sites: results of a 2-year (1996 to 1998) multicenter surveillance study in Quebec, Canada. J Clin Microbiol 2001;39:949–953.Google Scholar
20.Jandourek, A, Brown, P, Vazquez, JA. Community-acquired fungemia due to a multiple-azole-resistant strain of Candida tropicalis. Clin Infect Dis 1999;29:1583–1584.Google Scholar
21.Magaldi, S, Mata, S, Hartung, C, et al.In vitro susceptibility of 137 Candida sp. isolates from HIV positive patients to several antifungal drugs. Mycopathologia 2001;149:63–68.Google Scholar
22.Lo, H-J, Ho, AH, Ho, M. Factors accounting for mid-identification of Candida species. J Microbiol Immunol Infect 2001;34:171–177.Google ScholarPubMed
23.National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. Reference Method for Broth Dilution Antifungal Susceptibility Testing of Yeasts. Wayne, PA: National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards; 1997. Approved standard M27.Google Scholar
24.Dean, AG, Dean, JA. Epi Info (6.04): A Word Processing, Database, and Statistics Program for Epidemiology on Microcomputers. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 1996.Google Scholar
25.Hitchcock, CA. Cytochrome P-450-dependent 14 alpha-sterol demethylase of Candida albicans and its interaction with azole antifungals. Biochem Soc Trans 1991;19:782–787.Google Scholar
26.Vanden Bossche, H, Warnock, DW, Dupont, B, et al.Mechanisms and clinical impact of antifungal drug resistance. Journal of Medical and Veterinary Mycology 1994;32(suppl 1):189–202.Google Scholar
27.Abi-Said, D, Anaissie, E, Uzun, O, Raad, I, Pinzcowski, H, Vartivarian, S. The epidemiology of hematogenous candidiasis caused by different Candida species. Clin Infect Dis 1997;24:1122–1128.Google Scholar
28.Slavin, MA, Osborne, B, Adams, R, et al.Efficacy and safety of fluconazole prophylaxis for fungal infections after marrow transplantation: a prospective, randomized, double-blind study. J Infect Dis 1995;171:1545–1552.Google Scholar
29.Walsh, TJ, Hiemenz, JW, Seibel, NL, et al.Amphotericin B lipid complex for invasive fungal infections: analysis of safety and efficacy in 556 cases. Clin Infect Dis 1998;26:1383–1396.Google Scholar
30.Safdar, A, Chaturvedi, V, Cross, EW, et al.Prospective study of Candida species in patients at a comprehensive cancer center. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2001;45:2129–2133.Google Scholar
31.Calvet, HM, Yeaman, MR, Filler, SG. Reversible fluconazole resistance in Candida albicans: a potential in vitro model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1997;41:535–539.Google Scholar