Skip to main content
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems
  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About AAC
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • AAC Podcast
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems

User menu

  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
publisher-logosite-logo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About AAC
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • AAC Podcast
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
Experimental Therapeutics

Optimizing Echinocandin Dosing and Susceptibility Breakpoint Determination via In Vivo Pharmacodynamic Evaluation against Candida glabrata with and without fks Mutations

Alexander Lepak, Mariana Castanheira, Daniel Diekema, Michael Pfaller, David Andes
Alexander Lepak
aUniversity of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mariana Castanheira
cJMI Laboratories, North Liberty, Iowa, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Daniel Diekema
bUniversity of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michael Pfaller
bUniversity of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA
cJMI Laboratories, North Liberty, Iowa, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
David Andes
aUniversity of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.01102-12
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

Echinocandins are a preferred therapy for invasive candidiasis due to their potency and broad spectrum. Resistance, especially in Candida glabrata, is an emerging threat to their use. Pharmacodynamic (PD) studies examining reduced susceptibility secondary to fks mutations in C. glabrata are lacking. The current study explored PD targets for anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin in an in vivo invasive candidiasis model against 11 C. glabrata isolates with known or putative fks mutations. The PD targets were compared to those of 8 wild-type (WT) isolates. The MIC ranges in the WT group were 0.03 to 0.25 mg/liter for anidulafungin, 0.03 to 0.25 mg/liter for caspofungin, and 0.01 to 0.06 mg/liter for micafungin. The MIC ranges for mutants were 0.06 to 4, 0.25 to 16, and 0.13 to 8 mg/liter for the same compounds, respectively. The mean free drug 24-h area under the concentration-time curve (AUCf)/MIC ratio associated with a stasis endpoint for the WT group was 13.2 for anidulafungin, 2.04 for caspofungin, and 6.78 for micafungin. Comparative values for mutants were 3.43, 2.67, and 0.90, respectively. Pharmacokinetic data from patients suggest that the C. glabrata PD targets needed for success in this model could be achieved based on MIC values of 0.25 mg/liter for anidulafungin, 2 mg/liter for caspofungin, and 0.5 mg/liter for micafungin. These values are higher than recently identified epidemiology cutoff values (ECVs). The results suggest that drug-specific MIC breakpoints could be increased for caspofungin and micafungin against C. glabrata and could include organisms with mutations in fks-1 and fks-2. While identification of genetic mutants is epidemiologically important, the phenotype (MIC) provides a better predictor of therapeutic efficacy.

INTRODUCTION

Invasive fungal infections due to Candida glabrata are increasing in many parts of the world, including the United States (42). Intrinsic and acquired resistance to triazoles and polyenes limits therapeutic options (28, 45, 51). The advent of the echinocandin class was a major step in treatment of invasive candidiasis and is currently the first-line therapy, especially in situations for which C. glabrata is the infecting agent (12, 36). However, resistance to this class is an emerging problem for this Candida species, as detailed in recent case reports and surveillance studies (30, 40, 48, 52, 54, 56). Phenotypic and genetic analyses of these resistant strains have revealed that reduced susceptibilities to the echinocandin class are associated with mutations in fks-1 and/or fks-2 genes, which encode the active subunit of glucan synthase (24, 25, 37, 38).

Susceptibility breakpoints are continually reevaluated and adjusted as more in vitro susceptibility surveillance, in vivo animal model pharmacodynamics (PD) and, most importantly, patient outcome data become available. These advances and the availability of molecular techniques, such as the ability to genotype mutants with reduced susceptibility, have increased our ability to identify and study these isolates. Epidemiologically, the identification of these isolates is of importance for monitoring resistance development, which commonly occurs over the life span of an antimicrobial agent. However, clinical treatment decisions based on the presence or absence of a genetic mutation alone may lead to underutilization of an anti-infective agent in situations where the infection could still be successfully treated with adequate drug exposure. In this study, our aim was to compare PD targets in C. glabrata isolates with sequenced or putative fks-1 or fks-2 mutations to those with wild-type phenotypes. It is hoped that the results of these studies will be useful in the continued evaluation of susceptibility breakpoints and dosing regimen optimization for use of echinocandins in the treatment of invasive C. glabrata infections.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Organisms.Nineteen clinical Candida glabrata isolates were used for the in vivo treatment studies. These isolates included 8 wild-type clinical isolates, 9 clinical isolates harboring fks-1 or fks-2 hot spot mutations, and 2 clinical isolates that had presumed fks mutations. These latter two organisms were included in the resistant group, based on isolation from patients with breakthrough infections while on echinocandin therapy and elevated MICs (see Table 1, below). The organisms were chosen to include isolates with relatively similar degrees of fitness in the animal model, as determined by the amount of growth in the kidneys of untreated animals over 96 h.

Antifungal agents.Anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin were obtained from Pfizer, Merck, and Astellas, respectively, for in vitro susceptibility testing. Stock solutions were prepared for susceptibility testing as described in the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) standard M27-A3 (21). The same drugs were obtained from the University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics Pharmacy for in vivo treatment studies and prepared according to the manufacturers' instructions.

In vitro susceptibility testing.All isolates were tested in accordance with the standards in CLSI document M27-A3 (21). Studies were performed on three separate occasions in duplicate. Final results were expressed as the means of these replicates. Quality control was performed on each day of testing by using CLSI-recommended reference strains Candida krusei ATCC 6258 and Candida parapsilosis ATCC 22019.

Animals.Six-week-old ICR Swiss specific-pathogen-free female mice weighing 23 to 27 g were used for all studies. Animals were maintained in accordance with the American Association for Accreditation of Laboratory Care criteria. Animal studies were approved by the University of Wisconsin Animal Care Committee.

Infection model.A neutropenic, murine, disseminated candidiasis model was used for the treatment studies (2). Mice were rendered neutropenic (polymorphonuclear cell counts of <100 mm3) by injecting cyclophosphamide subcutaneously 4 days before infection (150 mg/kg of body weight), 1 day before infection (100 mg/kg), and 2 days after infection (100 mg/kg). Previous investigations had demonstrated that this regimen produces neutropenia throughout a 96-h study period (2). Organisms were subcultured on Sabouraud dextrose agar (SDA) 24 h prior to infection. The inocula were prepared by placing three to five colonies into 5 ml of sterile 0.15 M NaCl warmed to 35°C. The final inoculum was adjusted to 0.6 transmittance at 530 nm. Fungal counts of the inocula determined by viable counts on SDA were 6.17 ± 0.38 log10 CFU/ml (mean ± standard deviation).

Disseminated infection with C. glabrata organisms was produced by injection of 0.1 ml of the inoculum via the lateral tail vein 2 h prior to the start of antifungal therapy. At the end of the study period, animals were sacrificed by CO2 asphyxiation. After sacrifice the kidneys of each mouse were immediately removed and placed in sterile 0.15 M NaCl at 4°C. The organs were homogenized and then serially diluted 1:10. Aliquots were plated onto SDA for viable fungal colony counts after incubation for 24 h at 35°C. The lower limit of detection was 100 CFU/kidney. The results are expressed as the mean and standard deviation of the log10 CFU/kidney from three mice.

Pharmacokinetic studies and analysis.The single-dose pharmacokinetics (PK) of anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin used for these studies were previously determined by us using this infection model, and the results were published in this journal (5, 6, 11). These values were used for pharmacodynamic analyses of the current treatment studies.

Pharmacodynamic target determination.The 19 C. glabrata strains described above were used for in vivo treatment studies with each of the three echinocandins. Infection in mice was produced as described above. Dosing regimens were chosen to vary the magnitude of the 24-h area under the concentration-time curve (AUC)/MIC index and to attempt to produce a range of efficacies from no effect to maximal effect. Dose levels that varied 4-fold from 0.02 to 80 mg/kg were administered in a 0.2-ml volume by intraperitoneal injection every 24 h for a 4-day period. Groups of three mice were used for each dosing regimen. At the end of the treatment period, mice were euthanized, and the kidneys were immediately processed for determination of the number of CFU as described above.

The dose-response results were analyzed using a sigmoid dose-effect model. To compare the in vivo potencies of each drug against various C. glabrata strains, we determined the dose level required to produce a net static effect (no change in organism burden compared to the start of therapy) and a 1-log kill (relative to the burden at the start of therapy), as previously described (5). The echinocandin exposure associated with each treatment endpoint was calculated from the following formula: log10 D = log10(E/Emax − E)/(N + log10 ED50), where D is the drug dose, E is the growth in untreated control mice, Emax is the maximal effect, N is the slope of the dose-response relationship, and the ED50 is the dose needed to achieve 50% of the maximal effect. Emax was constrained when the measured Emax was lower than that predicted. The significance of differences in PD target endpoints was determined by using analysis of variance (ANOVA) on ranks for comparison within each organism group and among the three drugs, and the Mann-Whitney U test was used for comparisons between targets for mutant organisms versus the wild type for each drug.

RESULTS

In vitro susceptibility testing.The MICs of anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin for the 19 strains of C. glabrata are shown in Table 1. The MIC ranges for the wild-type organisms against anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin were 0.03 to 0.25, 0.03 to 0.25, and 0.01 to 0.06 mg/liter, respectively. The median MICs against each of the three drugs for this organism group were 0.06, 0.03, and 0.02 mg/liter, respectively. The MIC ranges for the fks mutant group against anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin were 0.06 to 4, 0.25 to 16, and 0.13 to 8 mg/liter, respectively. The median MICs for the mutant group with the three drugs were 1, 1, and 0.25 mg/liter, respectively. Interestingly, mutations at the same location, and even those that led to the same amino acid substitution (e.g., fks2_HS1_S663P), produced different MIC values.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1

In vitro activities of echinocandins against C. glabrata study isolates

Pharmacokinetics.The pharmacokinetics of anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin in this in vivo model have been previously described (5, 6, 11). Briefly, after administration of single intraperitoneal doses of 5, 20, or 80 mg/kg, the AUC from time zero to the end (AUC0-∞) ranged from 96 to 1,975 μg · h/ml for anidulafungin, 164 to 667 μg · h/ml for caspofungin, and 135 to 1,400 μg · h/ml for micafungin. The AUC values were linear (R2 = 0.98 to 0.99) over the dose range studied.

Pharmacodynamic target determinations.At the start of therapy, mice had 3.95 ± 0.35 log10 CFU/kidney. In untreated controls, the burden increased by 2.30 ± 0.60 log10 CFU/kidney. There were no significant differences in the burdens at the start of therapy or for growth in control mice between the two organism groups. The dose-response curves on a milligram per kilogram basis for the two groups of study organisms and each echinocandin are shown in Fig. 1, 2, and 3. In general, higher doses of a drug were required to achieve a similar effect for the strains with fks mutations than for wild-type strains.

Fig 1
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig 1

Dose-response relationships for anidulafungin against multiple C. glabrata isolates, including the wild type and fks mutants. Each point represents the mean burden of infection in the kidneys of three neutropenic mice. The dashed line represents the burden of organisms at the start of therapy. Points above the line represent organism growth, whereas points below the line represent organism death (i.e., fungicidal activity).

Fig 2
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig 2

Dose-response relationships for caspofungin against multiple C. glabrata isolates, including the wild type and fks mutants. Each point represents the mean burden of infection in the kidneys of three neutropenic mice. The dashed line represents the burden of organisms at the start of therapy. Points above the line represent organism growth, whereas points below the line represent organism death (i.e., fungicidal activity).

Fig 3
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig 3

Dose-response relationships for micafungin against multiple C. glabrata isolates, including the wild type and fks mutants. Each point represents the mean burden of infection in the kidneys of three neutropenic mice. The dashed line represents burden of organisms at the start of therapy. Points above the line represent organism growth, whereas points below the line represent organism death (i.e., fungicidal activity).

The 24-h AUC/MIC was used as the pharmacodynamic index for further exploration of the exposure-response relationships for each drug against the two groups of organisms (Fig. 4; Tables 2 and 3). Both total and free drug concentrations were considered, and free drug values are reported in the tables and figures. The AUC/MIC exposure-response relationships were similar for the reference and mutant strain groups.

Fig 4
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig 4

Relationship between the free drug 24-h AUC/MIC (AUCf/MIC) and efficacy of anidulafungin (A), caspofungin (B), and micafungin (C) against the wild type and fks mutant C. glabrata isolates. Each symbol represents the mean from three mice. The dashed line represents the burden of organisms at the start of therapy. The sigmoid line is the dose-effect best-fit line and is based on the Hill equation. The PD parameters for Emax, ED50, and the slope of the dose-response line (N) are listed for each drug. R2 is the coefficient of determination.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2

In vivo activities of anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin against wild-type C. glabrata isolates in a neutropenic murine disseminated candidiasis model

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3

In vivo activities of anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin against fks mutant C. glabrata isolates in a neutropenic murine disseminated candidiasis model

The amounts of drugs required to achieve a static effect and 1-log kill are reported for wild-type and fks mutant isolates in Tables 2 and 3, respectively. A stasis endpoint was achieved for each drug and organism combination in the wild-type group. However, this level of treatment efficacy was not observed for all organisms in the mutant group. Organisms with a MIC of ≥1 mg/liter for anidulafungin, ≥4 mg/liter for caspofungin, or ≥2 mg/liter for micafungin did not achieve a stasis endpoint. In the wild-type group, the mean 24-h static doses were 3.96, 0.09, and 1.58 mg/kg for anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin, respectively. The mean 24-h static dose free drug AUC/MIC ratios for this organism group were 13.2, 2.04, and 6.78, respectively. The AUC/MIC difference between anidulafungin and caspofungin reached statistical significance, with a P value of 0.003 by Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA on ranks. In comparison, for the mutant group the mean 24-h static dose for anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin were 11.3, 4.01, and 3.22 mg/kg, respectively. These values correspond to 24-h free drug AUC/MICs of 3.43, 2.67, and 0.90, respectively. These AUC/MIC targets were not statistically different. It is noteworthy that the 24-h free drug AUC/MIC targets for anidulafungin and micafungin were lower in the mutant group than for the wild type. These differences were statistically significant for both drugs (Mann-Whitney U test, P < 0.05).

One-log kill endpoints were achieved for all but 3 of the wild-type strains for each antifungal (Table 2). For the fks mutant group, a 1-log kill endpoint was achieved most commonly following therapy with caspofungin (7 of 10 strains) or micafungin (6 of 10), whereas for anidulafungin this effect was only observed against 2 mutant strains. The mean 24-h doses associated with a 1-log reduction in organism burden in the wild-type group were 5.78, 0.35 and 3.40 mg/kg for anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin, respectively. The corresponding 24-h free drug AUC/MIC ratios were 26.6, 4.71, and 14.9 mg · h/liter, respectively. In comparison, the mean 24-h 1-log kill doses in the mutant group for anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin were 14.4, 15.4, and 7.64 mg/kg, respectively (2.25- to 44-fold higher than that needed in the treatment against the wild-type group). These values correspond to 24-h free drug AUC/MIC ratios of 8.87, 8.21, and 1.91 mg · h/liter, respectively. For the two organism groups, there was not a significant difference between the caspofungin and micafungin 24-h 1-log kill free drug AUC/MIC targets. A statistical comparison between caspofungin or micafungin and anidulafungin for this endpoint was not undertaken due to the small number of endpoints achieved in the fks group for anidulafungin (n = 2). In comparing the wild-type and mutant groups for each drug, the 1-log kill PD target endpoint was numerically higher in the mutant group for caspofungin, but the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.694). In contrast, the AUC/MIC PD target was statistically lower in the mutant group for micafungin (P = 0.009). A statistical comparison between the wild-type and mutant group for this endpoint for anidulafungin was not undertaken due to the small number of endpoints achieved in the fks group for anidulafungin (n = 2).

DISCUSSION

Candida species are the fourth most common nosocomial bloodstream pathogen, the most common cause of systemic fungal infection, and have the highest mortality rate among nosocomial pathogens (42). Candida glabrata infections have risen markedly since the 1990s, and in most areas of the United States this species is now responsible for 20 to 40% of cases of invasive candidiasis (42, 43). The addition of the echinocandin class was a major step forward in treating invasive candidiasis and in particular those infections due to C. glabrata. However, as with all anti-infective therapies, emergence of resistance has begun to occur. For the echinocandin class, this was noted first for the species C. glabrata (16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 25, 29–31, 41, 47, 48, 54, 56). Elegant studies have delineated specific mutations within the fks genes that are associated with this resistance phenotype (24, 25, 37, 38). Interestingly, the phenotypes associated with these mutations have varied (13, 15). For example, some mutant strains exhibit an in vivo fitness cost relative to reference strains. All mutants are associated with an elevation in MICs; however, the relative changes in MICs compared to wild-type strains have been shown to differ widely. The development of multidrug resistance, specifically to fluconazole and echinocandin, in C. glabrata has recently been documented and poses a serious threat to antimicrobial therapy options (40, 46). For example, examination of the SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program data and the CDC Prevention Population-Based Surveillance data found coresistance (to fluconazole and echinocandin) in 10% of fluconazole-resistant C. glabrata clinical isolates from the years 2006 to 2010. While this remains a small percentage of the total C. glabrata population (<2%), this phenotype was not detected in an earlier study period from 2001 to 2004 (40).

Identification of these genetic changes, which can be associated with elevated MICs, is of critical importance as they are potential sentinels of treatment failures for patients. Indeed, in many cases these changes have been linked to echinocandin treatment failures (18, 20, 22, 24, 30, 48, 52, 54). The lowest MIC values associated with these genetic changes have been used recently in the determination of epidemiological cutoff values (ECV) to help laboratories identify strains harboring resistance mutations (39, 44). However, since the change in the MIC associated with fks mutations can vary significantly, it will be important to discern the in vivo treatment and ultimate clinical impact of these mutations and MIC changes.

The current investigation was designed to address the in vivo impact of these changes for echinocandin therapy, by using an experimental in vivo model that had been previously shown to correlate with outcomes in patients (1, 10, 14). More specifically, the in vivo murine model and pharmacodynamic analyses of results were used to discern the impacts of echinocandin dose, MIC, and fks-1 or fks-2 mutation on treatment effect. These approaches have recently demonstrated utility in defining the clinical relevance of bacterial resistance mutations, design of susceptibility breakpoints, and optimal treatment strategies (4, 33, 34).

The treatment findings with this large set of organisms demonstrated that the outcome was closely linked to MIC. Infection with isolates exhibiting a higher echinocandin MIC required a larger dose for response or did not respond to the highest doses administered. However, the echinocandin AUC/MIC values associated with efficacy were relatively similar across the entire group of isolates. If anything, the AUC/MIC targets were somewhat lower for the strains harboring resistance mutations than for the wild-type strain group. The basis for this relatively small difference is not entirely clear but will be an important focus of future studies. One common hypothesis for explaining outcome differences in mutant strains is the presence of a fitness cost associated with drug resistance. This phenomenon has been described for strains harboring fks-1 mutations (15). However, we prescreened the isolates used in the current investigation for fitness, and thus this was less likely a major factor in the treatment effect differences.

The ability to translate preclinical animal model PD experiment results to patients is an important tool that has proven useful for studies of a number of infections (1, 3, 14, 23). Previous studies with Candida and triazoles showed that the PD target associated with successful outcome in animal models was similar to the PD target in patients with esophageal or invasive candidiasis who were successfully treated (7–10, 14, 19, 32, 35, 49, 50, 53). Therefore, we attempted to extrapolate the current PD targets in this study to patients by considering echinocandin population pharmacokinetics, the PD target needed for efficacy in the current animal model study, and MICs in wild-type and mutant C. glabrata strains from surveillance studies. The approved steady-state dosing regimens for treatment of invasive candidiasis with these drugs include 100 mg/day for both anidulafungin and micafungin and 50 mg/day for caspofungin. These regimens produce free drug 24-h AUC values in healthy volunteers of 1.12 mg · h/ml for anidulafungin, 2.94 mg · h/liter for caspofungin, and 0.38 mg · h/ml for micafungin (17, 26, 27, 55). The pharmacokinetics for each echinocandin and the presented mean static dose pharmacodynamic target for C. glabrata isolates with fks mutations can be used to estimate the highest MIC for which efficacy is expected. On this basis, the highest MICs for which the PD target would be achieved is approximately 0.25 mg/liter for anidulafungin, 1 mg/liter for caspofungin, and 0.5 mg/liter for micafungin. The most recently reported ECV values for C. glabrata are lower than these MIC values (caspofungin ECV, 0.12 mg/liter; micafungin ECV, 0.03 mg/liter). The current data suggest that the ECV breakpoints for C. glabrata include organisms for which PK/PD estimates predict treatment success. Collection and analysis of clinical data will be important for further exploration of these questions.

In summary, the present investigation demonstrated that the relationship between drug exposure (the AUC) and the MIC provides the most sensitive predictor of therapeutic efficacy. More specifically, the PD target, whether it is the static dose or 1-log kill level, is similar in the presence or absence of genetic mutations in fks. The results suggest that drug-specific MIC breakpoints could be increased for caspofungin and micafungin against C. glabrata. Furthermore, given the relatively wide therapeutic indices of these drugs, study of higher doses of echinocandins may allow sufficient exposures for successful treatment of C. glabrata infections with even higher MICs.

FOOTNOTES

    • Received 27 May 2012.
    • Returned for modification 21 July 2012.
    • Accepted 25 August 2012.
    • Accepted manuscript posted online 4 September 2012.
  • Copyright © 2012, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Ambrose PG,
    2. et al
    . 2007. Pharmacokinetics-pharmacodynamics of antimicrobial therapy: it's not just for mice anymore. Clin. Infect. Dis. 44:79–86.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  2. 2.↵
    1. Andes D
    . 2005. Use of an animal model of disseminated candidiasis in the evaluation of antifungal therapy. Methods Mol. Med. 118:111–128.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Andes D,
    2. et al
    . 2011. Use of pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic analyses to optimize therapy with the systemic antifungal micafungin for invasive candidiasis or candidemia. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 55:2113–2121.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. Andes D,
    2. Craig WA
    . 2005. Treatment of infections with ESBL-producing organisms: pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic considerations. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 11(Suppl. 6):10–17.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  5. 5.↵
    1. Andes D,
    2. et al
    . 2010. In vivo comparison of the pharmacodynamic targets for echinocandin drugs against Candida species. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 54:2497–2506.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. Andes D,
    2. et al
    . 2008. In vivo pharmacodynamic characterization of anidulafungin in a neutropenic murine candidiasis model. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 52:539–550.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    1. Andes D,
    2. et al
    . 2004. Pharmacodynamics of a new triazole, posaconazole, in a murine model of disseminated candidiasis. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 48:137–142.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Andes D,
    2. Marchillo K,
    3. Stamstad T,
    4. Conklin R
    . 2003. In vivo pharmacodynamics of a new triazole, ravuconazole, in a murine candidiasis model. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 47:1193–1199.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    1. Andes D,
    2. Marchillo K,
    3. Stamstad T,
    4. Conklin R
    . 2003. In vivo pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of a new triazole, voriconazole, in a murine candidiasis model. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 47:3165–3169.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. 10.↵
    1. Andes D,
    2. van Ogtrop M
    . 1999. Characterization and quantitation of the pharmacodynamics of fluconazole in a neutropenic murine disseminated candidiasis infection model. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 43:2116–2120.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    1. Andes DR,
    2. Diekema DJ,
    3. Pfaller MA,
    4. Marchillo K,
    5. Bohrmueller J
    . 2008. In vivo pharmacodynamic target investigation for micafungin against Candida albicans and C. glabrata in a neutropenic murine candidiasis model. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 52:3497–3503.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. Andes DR,
    2. et al
    . 2012. Impact of treatment strategy on outcomes in patients with candidemia and other forms of invasive candidiasis: a patient-level quantitative review of randomized trials. Clin. Infect. Dis. 54:1110–1122.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Arendrup MC,
    2. et al
    . 2012. Differential in vivo activity of anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin against Candida glabrata with and without FKS resistance mutations. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 56:2435–2442.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. 14.↵
    1. Baddley JW,
    2. Patel M,
    3. Bhavnani SM,
    4. Moser SA,
    5. Andes DR
    . 2008. Association of fluconazole pharmacodynamics with mortality in patients with candidemia. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 52:3022–3028.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    1. Ben-Ami R,
    2. et al
    . 2011. Fitness and virulence costs of Candida albicans FKS1 hot spot mutations associated with echinocandin resistance. J. Infect. Dis. 204:626–635.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Castanheira M,
    2. et al
    . 2010. Low prevalence of fks1 hot spot 1 mutations in a worldwide collection of Candida strains. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 54:2655–2659.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. 17.↵
    1. Chandrasekar PH,
    2. Sobel JD
    . 2006. Micafungin: a new echinocandin. Clin. Infect. Dis. 42:1171–1178.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  18. 18.↵
    1. Chapeland-Leclerc F,
    2. et al
    . 2010. Acquisition of flucytosine, azole, and caspofungin resistance in Candida glabrata bloodstream isolates serially obtained from a hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipient. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 54:1360–1362.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. 19.↵
    1. Clancy CJ,
    2. Yu VL,
    3. Morris AJ,
    4. Snydman DR,
    5. Nguyen MH
    . 2005. Fluconazole MIC and the fluconazole dose/MIC ratio correlate with therapeutic response among patients with candidemia. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 49:3171–3177.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. 20.↵
    1. Cleary JD,
    2. Garcia-Effron G,
    3. Chapman SW,
    4. Perlin DS
    . 2008. Reduced Candida glabrata susceptibility secondary to an FKS1 mutation developed during candidemia treatment. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 52:2263–2265.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. 21.↵
    Clincal Laboratory Standards Institute. 2008. Reference method for broth dilution antifungal susceptibility testing of yeasts. Approved standard, 3rd ed. CLSI document M27-A3. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, Wayne, PA.
  22. 22.↵
    1. Costa-de-Oliveira S,
    2. et al
    . 2011. FKS2 mutations associated with decreased echinocandin susceptibility of Candida glabrata following anidulafungin therapy. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 55:1312–1314.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. 23.↵
    1. Craig WA,
    2. Andes D
    . 1996. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of antibiotics in otitis media. Pediatr. Infect. Dis. J. 15:255–259.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  24. 24.↵
    1. Garcia-Effron G,
    2. et al
    . 2010. Novel FKS mutations associated with echinocandin resistance in Candida species. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 54:2225–2227.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. 25.↵
    1. Garcia-Effron G,
    2. Lee S,
    3. Park S,
    4. Cleary JD,
    5. Perlin DS
    . 2009. Effect of Candida glabrata FKS1 and FKS2 mutations on echinocandin sensitivity and kinetics of 1,3-beta-d-glucan synthase: implication for the existing susceptibility breakpoint. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 53:3690–3699.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. 26.↵
    1. Gumbo T,
    2. et al
    . 2008. Population pharmacokinetics of micafungin in adult patients. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 60:329–331.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  27. 27.↵
    1. Hebert MF,
    2. et al
    . 2005. Pharmacokinetics of micafungin in healthy volunteers, volunteers with moderate liver disease, and volunteers with renal dysfunction. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 45:1145–1152.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  28. 28.↵
    1. Iatta R,
    2. Caggiano G,
    3. Cuna T,
    4. Montagna MT
    . 2011. Antifungal susceptibility testing of a 10-year collection of Candida spp. isolated from patients with candidemia. J. Chemother. 23:92–96.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  29. 29.↵
    1. Katiyar S,
    2. Pfaller M,
    3. Edlind T
    . 2006. Candida albicans and Candida glabrata clinical isolates exhibiting reduced echinocandin susceptibility. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 50:2892–2894.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. 30.↵
    1. Kofteridis DP,
    2. Lewis RE,
    3. Kontoyiannis DP
    . 2010. Caspofungin-non-susceptible Candida isolates in cancer patients. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 65:293–295.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    1. Krogh-Madsen M,
    2. Arendrup MC,
    3. Heslet L,
    4. Knudsen JD
    . 2006. Amphotericin B and caspofungin resistance in Candida glabrata isolates recovered from a critically ill patient. Clin. Infect. Dis. 42:938–944.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  32. 32.↵
    1. Lee SC,
    2. et al
    . 2000. Clinical correlates of antifungal macrodilution susceptibility test results for non-AIDS patients with severe Candida infections treated with fluconazole. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 44:2715–2718.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  33. 33.↵
    1. Lee SY,
    2. Kuti JL,
    3. Nicolau DP
    . 2007. Cefepime pharmacodynamics in patients with extended spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) and non-ESBL infections. J. Infect. 54:463–468.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  34. 34.↵
    1. Maglio D,
    2. et al
    . 2004. Determination of the in vivo pharmacodynamic profile of cefepime against extended-spectrum-beta-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli at various inocula. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 48:1941–1947.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  35. 35.↵
    1. Pai MP,
    2. Turpin RS,
    3. Garey KW
    . 2007. Association of fluconazole area under the concentration-time curve/MIC and dose/MIC ratios with mortality in nonneutropenic patients with candidemia. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 51:35–39.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  36. 36.↵
    1. Pappas PG,
    2. et al
    . 2009. Clinical practice guidelines for the management of candidiasis: 2009 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin. Infect. Dis. 48:503–535.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  37. 37.↵
    1. Park S,
    2. et al
    . 2005. Specific substitutions in the echinocandin target Fks1p account for reduced susceptibility of rare laboratory and clinical Candida sp. isolates. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 49:3264–3273.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  38. 38.↵
    1. Perlin D
    . 2011. Echinocandin-resistant Candida: molecular methods and phenotypes. Curr. Fungal Infect. Rep. 5:113–119.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  39. 39.↵
    1. Pfaller MA,
    2. et al
    . 2010. Wild-type MIC distributions and epidemiological cutoff values for the echinocandins and Candida spp. J. Clin. Microbiol. 48:52–56.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  40. 40.↵
    1. Pfaller MA,
    2. et al
    . 2012. Frequency of decreased susceptibility and resistance to echinocandins among fluconazole-resistant bloodstream isolates of Candida glabrata: results from the SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program (2006 to 2010) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Population-Based Surveillance (2008 to 2010). J. Clin. Microbiol. 50:1199–1203.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  41. 41.↵
    1. Pfaller MA,
    2. Castanheira M,
    3. Messer SA,
    4. Moet GJ,
    5. Jones RN
    . 2010. Variation in Candida spp. distribution and antifungal resistance rates among bloodstream infection isolates by patient age: report from the SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program (2008–2009). Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 68:278–283.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. 42.↵
    1. Pfaller MA,
    2. Diekema DJ
    . 2007. Epidemiology of invasive candidiasis: a persistent public health problem. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 20:133–163.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  43. 43.↵
    1. Pfaller MA,
    2. Diekema DJ
    . 2010. Epidemiology of invasive mycoses in North America. Crit. Rev. Microbiol. 36:1–53.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  44. 44.↵
    1. Pfaller MA,
    2. et al
    . 2011. Clinical breakpoints for the echinocandins and Candida revisited: integration of molecular, clinical, and microbiological data to arrive at species-specific interpretive criteria. Drug Resist. Updates 14:164–176.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  45. 45.↵
    1. Pfaller MA,
    2. et al
    . 2009. Variation in susceptibility of bloodstream isolates of Candida glabrata to fluconazole according to patient age and geographic location in the United States in 2001 to 2007. J. Clin. Microbiol. 47:3185–3190.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  46. 46.↵
    1. Pfaller MA,
    2. Messer SA,
    3. Moet GJ,
    4. Jones RN,
    5. Castanheira M
    . 2011. Candida bloodstream infections: comparison of species distribution and resistance to echinocandin and azole antifungal agents in intensive care unit (ICU) and non-ICU settings in the SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program (2008–2009). Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 38:65–69.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. 47.↵
    1. Pfaller MA,
    2. Moet GJ,
    3. Messer SA,
    4. Jones RN,
    5. Castanheira M
    . 2011. Geographic variations in species distribution and echinocandin and azole antifungal resistance rates among Candida bloodstream infection isolates: report from the SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program (2008 to 2009). J. Clin. Microbiol. 49:396–399.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  48. 48.↵
    1. Pfeiffer CD,
    2. et al
    . 2010. Breakthrough invasive candidiasis in patients on micafungin. J. Clin. Microbiol. 48:2373–2380.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  49. 49.↵
    1. Rex JH,
    2. et al
    . 1997. Development of interpretive breakpoints for antifungal susceptibility testing: conceptual framework and analysis of in vitro-in vivo correlation data for fluconazole, itraconazole, and candida infections. Subcommittee on Antifungal Susceptibility Testing of the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. Clin. Infect. Dis. 24:235–247.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  50. 50.↵
    1. Rodriguez-Tudela JL,
    2. et al
    . 2007. Correlation of the MIC and dose/MIC ratio of fluconazole to the therapeutic response of patients with mucosal candidiasis and candidemia. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 51:3599–3604.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  51. 51.↵
    1. Schmalreck AF,
    2. et al
    . 2012. Species and susceptibility distribution of 1062 clinical yeast isolates to azoles, echinocandins, flucytosine and amphotericin B from a multi-centre study. Mycoses 55:e124–e137.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  52. 52.↵
    1. Sun HY,
    2. Singh N
    . 2010. Characterisation of breakthrough invasive mycoses in echinocandin recipients: an evidence-based review. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 35:211–218.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  53. 53.↵
    1. Takakura S,
    2. et al
    . 2004. Clinical factors associated with fluconazole resistance and short-term survival in patients with Candida bloodstream infection. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 23:380–388.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  54. 54.↵
    1. Thompson GR III,
    2. et al
    . 2008. Development of caspofungin resistance following prolonged therapy for invasive candidiasis secondary to Candida glabrata infection. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 52:3783–3785.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  55. 55.↵
    1. Vazquez JA,
    2. Sobel JD
    . 2006. Anidulafungin: a novel echinocandin. Clin. Infect. Dis. 43:215–222.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  56. 56.↵
    1. Zimbeck AJ,
    2. et al
    . 2010. FKS mutations and elevated echinocandin MIC values among Candida glabrata isolates from U.S. population-based surveillance. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 54:5042–5047.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Optimizing Echinocandin Dosing and Susceptibility Breakpoint Determination via In Vivo Pharmacodynamic Evaluation against Candida glabrata with and without fks Mutations
Alexander Lepak, Mariana Castanheira, Daniel Diekema, Michael Pfaller, David Andes
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Oct 2012, 56 (11) 5875-5882; DOI: 10.1128/AAC.01102-12

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Print

Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email

Thank you for sharing this Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Optimizing Echinocandin Dosing and Susceptibility Breakpoint Determination via In Vivo Pharmacodynamic Evaluation against Candida glabrata with and without fks Mutations
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Optimizing Echinocandin Dosing and Susceptibility Breakpoint Determination via In Vivo Pharmacodynamic Evaluation against Candida glabrata with and without fks Mutations
Alexander Lepak, Mariana Castanheira, Daniel Diekema, Michael Pfaller, David Andes
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Oct 2012, 56 (11) 5875-5882; DOI: 10.1128/AAC.01102-12
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • INTRODUCTION
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

  • About AAC
  • Editor in Chief
  • Editorial Board
  • Policies
  • For Reviewers
  • For the Media
  • For Librarians
  • For Advertisers
  • Alerts
  • AAC Podcast
  • RSS
  • FAQ
  • Permissions
  • Journal Announcements

Authors

  • ASM Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Article Types
  • Ethics
  • Contact Us

Follow #AACJournal

@ASMicrobiology

       

ASM Journals

ASM journals are the most prominent publications in the field, delivering up-to-date and authoritative coverage of both basic and clinical microbiology.

About ASM | Contact Us | Press Room

 

ASM is a member of

Scientific Society Publisher Alliance

 

American Society for Microbiology
1752 N St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 737-3600

Copyright © 2021 American Society for Microbiology | Privacy Policy | Website feedback

Print ISSN: 0066-4804; Online ISSN: 1098-6596