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
Susceptibility

Differential In Vivo Activities of Anidulafungin, Caspofungin, and Micafungin against Candida glabrata Isolates with and without FKS Resistance Mutations

Maiken Cavling Arendrup, David S. Perlin, Rasmus Hare Jensen, Susan Julie Howard, Joanne Goodwin, William Hope
Maiken Cavling Arendrup
aUnit of Mycology and Parasitology, Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
David S. Perlin
bPublic Health Research Institute, UMDNJ-New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rasmus Hare Jensen
aUnit of Mycology and Parasitology, Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Susan Julie Howard
cThe University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, NIHR Translational Research Facility in Respiratory Medicine, University Hospital of South Manchester NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Joanne Goodwin
cThe University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, NIHR Translational Research Facility in Respiratory Medicine, University Hospital of South Manchester NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
William Hope
cThe University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, NIHR Translational Research Facility in Respiratory Medicine, University Hospital of South Manchester NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.06369-11
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

We recently observed that the micafungin MICs for some Candida glabrata fks hot spot mutant isolates are less elevated than those for the other echinocandins, suggesting that the efficacy of micafungin may be differentially dependent on such mutations. Three clinical C. glabrata isolates with or without (S3) fks hot spot mutations R83 (Fks2p-S663F) and RR24 (Fks1p-S629P) and low, medium, and high echinocandin MICs, respectively, were evaluated to assess the in vivo efficacy in an immunocompetent mouse model using three doses of each echinocandin. Drug concentrations were determined in plasma and kidneys by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). A pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic mathematical model was used to define the area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) that produced half- and near-maximal activity. Micafungin was equally efficacious against the S3 and R83 isolates. The estimates for the AUCs of each echinocandin that induced half-maximal effect (E50s) were 194.2 and 53.99 mg · h/liter, respectively. In contrast, the maximum effect (Emax) for caspofungin was higher against S3 than R83, but the estimates for E50 were similar (187.1 and 203.5 mg · h/liter, respectively). Anidulafungin failed to induce a ≥1-log reduction for any of the isolates (AUC range, 139 to 557 mg · h/liter). None of the echinocandins were efficacious in mice challenged with the RR24 isolate despite lower virulence (reduced maximal growth, prolonged lag phase, and lower kidney burden). The AUC associated with half-maximal effect was higher than the average human exposure for all drug-dose-bug combinations except micafungin and the R83 isolate. In conclusion, differences in micafungin MICs are associated with differential antifungal activities in the animal model. This study may have implications for clinical practice and echinocandin breakpoint determination, and further studies are warranted.

  • Copyright © 2012, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.
View Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Differential In Vivo Activities of Anidulafungin, Caspofungin, and Micafungin against Candida glabrata Isolates with and without FKS Resistance Mutations
Maiken Cavling Arendrup, David S. Perlin, Rasmus Hare Jensen, Susan Julie Howard, Joanne Goodwin, William Hope
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Apr 2012, 56 (5) 2435-2442; DOI: 10.1128/AAC.06369-11

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.
Differential In Vivo Activities of Anidulafungin, Caspofungin, and Micafungin against Candida glabrata Isolates with and without FKS Resistance 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
Differential In Vivo Activities of Anidulafungin, Caspofungin, and Micafungin against Candida glabrata Isolates with and without FKS Resistance Mutations
Maiken Cavling Arendrup, David S. Perlin, Rasmus Hare Jensen, Susan Julie Howard, Joanne Goodwin, William Hope
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Apr 2012, 56 (5) 2435-2442; DOI: 10.1128/AAC.06369-11
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
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • 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