18
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Candidiasis and Mechanisms of Antifungal Resistance

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Candidiasis can be present as a cutaneous, mucosal or deep-seated organ infection, which is caused by more than 20 types of Candida sp., with C. albicans being the most common. These are pathogenic yeast and are usually present in the normal microbiome. High-risk individuals are patients of human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS), organ transplant, and diabetes. During infection, pathogens can adhere to complement receptors and various extracellular matrix proteins in the oral and vaginal cavity. Oral and vaginal Candidiasis results from the overgrowth of Candida sp. in the hosts, causing penetration of the oral and vaginal tissues. Symptoms include white patches in the mouth, tongue, throat, and itchiness or burning of genitalia. Diagnosis involves visual examination, microscopic analysis, or culturing. These infections are treated with a variety of antifungals that target different biosynthetic pathways of the pathogen. For example, echinochandins target cell wall biosynthesis, while allylamines, azoles, and morpholines target ergosterol biosynthesis, and 5-Flucytosine (5FC) targets nucleic acid biosynthesis. Azoles are commonly used in therapeutics, however, because of its fungistatic nature, Candida sp. evolve azole resistance. Besides azoles, Candida sp. also acquire resistance to polyenes, echinochandins, and 5FC. This review discusses, in detail, the drug resistance mechanisms adapted by Candida sp.

          Related collections

          Most cited references98

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Executive Summary: Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Candidiasis: 2016 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

          It is important to realize that guidelines cannot always account for individual variation among patients. They are not intended to supplant physician judgment with respect to particular patients or special clinical situations. IDSA considers adherence to these guidelines to be voluntary, with the ultimate determination regarding their application to be made by the physician in the light of each patient's individual circumstances.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Amphotericin B formulations: a comparative review of efficacy and toxicity.

            Because of the increasing prevalence and changing microbiological spectrum of invasive fungal infections, some form of amphotericin B still provides the most reliable and broad spectrum therapeutic alternative. However, the use of amphotericin B deoxycholate is accompanied by dose-limited toxicities, most importantly, infusion-related reactions and nephrotoxicity. In an attempt to improve the therapeutic index of amphotericin B, three lipid-associated formulations were developed, including amphotericin B lipid complex (ABLC), liposomal amphotericin B (L-AmB), and amphotericin B colloidal dispersion (ABCD). The lipid composition of all three of these preparations differs considerably and contributes to substantially different pharmacokinetic parameters. ABLC is the largest of the lipid preparations. Because of its size, it is taken up rapidly by macrophages and becomes sequestered in tissues of the mononuclear phagocyte system such as the liver and spleen. Consequently, compared with the conventional formulation, it has lower circulating amphotericin B serum concentrations, reflected in a marked increase in volume of distribution and clearance. Lung levels are considerably higher than those achieved with other lipid-associated preparations. The recommended therapeutic dose of ABLC is 5 mg/kg/day. Because of its small size and negative charge, L-AmB avoids substantial recognition and uptake by the mononuclear phagocyte system. Therefore, a single dose of L-AmB results in a much higher peak plasma level (Cmax) than conventional amphotericin B deoxycholate and a much larger area under the concentration-time curve. Tissue concentrations in patients receiving L-AmB tend to be highest in the liver and spleen and much lower in kidneys and lung. Recommended therapeutic dosages are 3-6 mg/kg/day. After intravenous infusion, ABCD complexes remain largely intact and are rapidly removed from the circulation by cells of the macrophage phagocyte system. On a milligram-to-milligram basis, the Cmax achieved is lower than that attained by conventional amphotericin B, although the larger doses of ABCD that are administered produce an absolute level that is similar to amphotericin B. ABCD exhibits dose-limiting, infusion-related toxicities; consequently, the administered dosages should not exceed 3-4 mg/kg/day. The few comparative clinical trials that have been completed with the lipid-associated formulations have not demonstrated important clinical differences among these agents and amphotericin B for efficacy, although there are significant safety benefits of the lipid products. Furthermore, only one published trial has ever compared one lipid product against another for any indication. The results of these trials are particularly difficult to interpret because of major heterogeneities in study design, disease definitions, drug dosages, differences in clinical and microbiological endpoints as well as specific outcomes examined. Nevertheless, it is possible to derive some general conclusions given the available data. The most commonly studied syndrome has been empiric therapy for febrile neutropenic patients, where the lipid-associated preparations did not appear to provide a survival benefit over conventional amphotericin B deoxycholate, but did offer a significant advantage for the prevention of various breakthrough invasive fungal infections. For treatment of documented invasive fungal infections that usually involved hematological malignancy patients, no individual randomized trial has demonstrated a mortality benefit due to therapy with one of the lipid formulations. Results from meta-analyses have been contradictory, with one demonstrating a mortality benefit from all-cause mortality and one that did not demonstrate a mortality benefit. In the only published study to examine HIV-infected patients with disseminated histoplasmosis, clinical success and mortality were significantly better with L-AmB compared with amphotericin B deoxycholate; there were no differences in microbiological outcomes between treatment groups. The lipid-associated preparations were not significantly better than amphotericin B deoxycholate for treatment of AIDS-associated acute cryptococcal meningitis for either clinical or microbiological outcomes that were studied. In all of the trials that specifically examined renal toxicity, the lipid-associated formulations were significantly less nephrotoxic than amphotericin B deoxycholate. Infusion-related reactions occurred less frequently with L-AmB when compared with amphotericin B deoxycholate; however, ABCD had equivalent or more frequent infusion-related reactions than conventional amphotericin B, and this resulted in the cessation of at least one clinical trial. At the present time, this particular lipid formulation is no longer commercially available. For the treatment of most invasive fungal infections, an amphotericin B lipid formulation provides a safer alternative than conventional amphotericin B, with at least equivalent efficacy. As the cost of therapy with these agents continues to decline, these drugs will likely maintain their important role in the antifungal drug armamentarium because of their efficacy and improved safety profile.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Multidrug-Resistant Candida: Epidemiology, Molecular Mechanisms, and Treatment.

              Invasive Candida infections remain an important cause of morbidity and mortality, especially in hospitalized and immunocompromised or critically ill patients. A limited number of antifungal agents from only a few drug classes are available to treat patients with these serious infections. Resistance can be either intrinsic or acquired. Resistance mechanisms are not exchanged between Candida; thus, acquired resistance either emerges in response to an antifungal selection pressure in the individual patient or, more rarely, occur due to horizontal transmission of resistant strains between patients. Although multidrug resistance is uncommon, increasing reports of multidrug resistance to the azoles, echinocandins, and polyenes have occurred in several Candida species, most notably Candida glabrata and more recently Candida auris. Drivers are overall antifungal use, subtherapeutic drug levels at sites of infection/colonization, drug sequestration in the biofilm matrix, and, in the setting of outbreaks, suboptimal infection control. Moreover, recent research suggests that DNA mismatch repair gene mutations may facilitate acquisition of resistance mutations in C. glabrata specifically. Diagnosis of antifungal-resistant Candida infections is critical to the successful management of patients with these infections. Reduction of unnecessary use of antifungals via antifungal stewardship is critical to limit multidrug resistance emergence.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Antibiotics (Basel)
                Antibiotics (Basel)
                antibiotics
                Antibiotics
                MDPI
                2079-6382
                09 June 2020
                June 2020
                : 9
                : 6
                : 312
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York, NY 11794, USA; sutthichai.sae-tia@ 123456stonybrookmedicine.edu (S.S.-T.); Bettina.Fries@ 123456stonybrookmedicine.edu (B.C.F.)
                [2 ]Department of Molecular Genetics and Microbiology, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York, NY 11794, USA
                [3 ]Veterans Administration Medical Center, Northport, New York, NY 11768, USA
                Author notes
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8562-3877
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6847-5518
                Article
                antibiotics-09-00312
                10.3390/antibiotics9060312
                7345657
                32526921
                145b80d6-5f81-4a7d-858a-55bee6e2d4c2
                © 2020 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/).

                History
                : 04 May 2020
                : 07 June 2020
                Categories
                Review

                candidiasis,antifungal resistance,azole resistance,efflux pump,ergosterol biosynthesis,echinochandin resistance,polyene resistance,5-flucytosine resistance

                Comments

                Comment on this article