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
Letter to the Editor

In Vitro Antifungal Susceptibility of the Emerging Multidrug-Resistant Pathogen Candida auris to Miltefosine Alone and in Combination with Amphotericin B

Yongqin Wu, Marissa Totten, Warda Memon, Chunmei Ying, Sean X. Zhang
Yongqin Wu
aDepartment of Clinical Laboratory, Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital of Fudan University, Shanghai, China
bDivision of Medical Microbiology, Department of Pathology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Marissa Totten
bDivision of Medical Microbiology, Department of Pathology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Warda Memon
cMicrobiology Laboratory, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Chunmei Ying
aDepartment of Clinical Laboratory, Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital of Fudan University, Shanghai, China
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sean X. Zhang
bDivision of Medical Microbiology, Department of Pathology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
cMicrobiology Laboratory, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.02063-19
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

LETTER

Candida auris, a globally emerging human fungal pathogen, has arisen as a public health concern worldwide because of its ability to cause nosocomial outbreaks and its resistance to multiple antifungal drugs (1, 2). C. auris is resistant to fluconazole in up to 90% of isolates and exhibits reduced susceptibility to other azoles (3, 4); resistance to amphotericin B and 5-flucytosine has also been reported (5–7). Echinocandin resistance is relatively rare, and this drug class has been chosen as the first line of choice to treat C. auris infections; however, reduced susceptibility to echinocandins has been increasingly reported (6, 8, 9). Thus, in the absence of new antifungal drugs currently available to treat the disease, alternative antifungal regimens are urgently sought. Miltefosine, a type of alkyl-phospholipid analogue, is a clinically licensed antileishmanial drug. The drug was found to possess in vitro antifungal activity against a pan-antifungal drug-resistant fungus, Lomentospora prolificans, but demonstrated different in vitro and in vivo activities against Cryptococcus neoformans (10–12). In this study, we examined the in vitro antifungal susceptibility of miltefosine alone or in combination with fluconazole or amphotericin B against 12 C. auris clinical isolates, which included 10 from the CDC and FDA Antibiotic Resistance (AR) Bank and 2 from the Johns Hopkins Hospital (representing 4 different geographic clades).

The MICs were determined using the broth microdilution method or the broth checkerboard method from the CLSI M27-A4 document (13). The endpoints were defined as at least 50% inhibition of growth for azoles alone and in combination with miltefosine and as 100% inhibition of growth for amphotericin B alone and in combination with miltefosine. The endpoint for miltefosine alone was read at 50% and 100% inhibition, respectively. Drug synergy testing (repeated three times) was assessed by calculating the fractional inhibitory concentration index (FICI) as follows: FICI ≤ 0.5 for synergism, 0.5 < FICI < 4 for indifference, and FICI > 4 for antagonism (14). The minimum fungicidal concentrations (MFCs) were defined as the lowest concentration that eliminated 99.9% of the colonies formed on the plates as previously described (15). Strains of Candida parapsilosis ATCC 22019 and Candida krusei ATCC 6258 were used as controls.

Eleven isolates (11/12) were fluconazole resistant (MIC90, 256 μg/ml), and seven isolates (7/12) had a high MIC for voriconazole (MIC90, 4 μg/ml) (Table 1), according to the tentative MIC breakpoints recommended by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (https://www.cdc.gov/fungal/candida-auris/c-auris-antifungal.html). Three isolates (3/12) were resistant to amphotericin B (2 μg/ml) and fluconazole (128 to 256 μg/ml). All isolates were susceptible to micafungin (data not shown here). All isolates showed a miltefosine MIC at 2 μg/ml using endpoint reading at either 50% or 100% inhibition (with an exception for two isolates showing an MIC at 4 μg/ml read at 100% inhibition). The drug showed fungicidal activity against C. auris (Table 1). Although there are no established breakpoints for miltefosine, the pharmacokinetics of miltefosine in children and adults treated with leishmaniasis showed high miltefosine plasma concentrations (i.e., 17.2 to 42.4 μg/ml), and no serious adverse events were reported (16, 17). Therefore, as it has fungicidal activity at an MIC of 2 to 4 μg/ml, miltefosine may be a good alternative drug of choice to treat C. auris; however, more pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics studies are needed.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
TABLE 1

In vitro antifungal susceptibility testing of C. auris isolates

The synergistic effect of miltefosine with amphotericin B was observed for three isolates (3/12) (Table 2). The MIC of amphotericin B was reduced 8-fold for 3 isolates and 4-fold for 5 isolates. This finding was consistent with previous studies that showed a major reduction in amphotericin B susceptibility when it was used in combination with miltefosine against clinical molds (18, 19). However, miltefosine and fluconazole combinations showed indifferent interaction for all isolates. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study examining the activity of miltefosine against C. auris. Although we only tested a dozen C. auris isolates, our data showed that miltefosine has potential activities against C. auris either alone or in synergy with amphotericin B.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
TABLE 2

Antifungal synergy testing of C. auris isolates

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Yongqin Wu was supported by the China Scholarship Council (scholarship 201806100109).

  • Copyright © 2020 American Society for Microbiology.

All Rights Reserved.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Rhodes J,
    2. Fisher MC
    . 2019. Global epidemiology of emerging Candida auris. Curr Opin Microbiol 52:84–89. doi:10.1016/j.mib.2019.05.008.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  2. 2.↵
    1. Lockhart SR
    . 2019. Candida auris and multidrug resistance: defining the new normal. Fungal Genet Biol 131:103243. doi:10.1016/j.fgb.2019.103243.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  3. 3.↵
    1. Chowdhary A,
    2. Anil KV,
    3. Sharma C,
    4. Prakash A,
    5. Agarwal K,
    6. Babu R,
    7. Dinesh KR,
    8. Karim S,
    9. Singh SK,
    10. Hagen F,
    11. Meis JF
    . 2014. Multidrug-resistant endemic clonal strain of Candida auris in India. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 33:919–926. doi:10.1007/s10096-013-2027-1.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Lockhart SR,
    2. Etienne KA,
    3. Vallabhaneni S,
    4. Farooqi J,
    5. Chowdhary A,
    6. Govender NP,
    7. Colombo AL,
    8. Calvo B,
    9. Cuomo CA,
    10. Desjardins CA,
    11. Berkow EL,
    12. Castanheira M,
    13. Magobo RE,
    14. Jabeen K,
    15. Asghar RJ,
    16. Meis JF,
    17. Jackson B,
    18. Chiller T,
    19. Litvintseva AP
    . 2017. Simultaneous emergence of multidrug-resistant Candida auris on 3 continents confirmed by whole-genome sequencing and epidemiological analyses. Clin Infect Dis 64:134–140. doi:10.1093/cid/ciw691.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Chowdhary A,
    2. Prakash A,
    3. Sharma C,
    4. Kordalewska M,
    5. Kumar A,
    6. Sarma S,
    7. Tarai B,
    8. Singh A,
    9. Upadhyaya G,
    10. Upadhyay S,
    11. Yadav P,
    12. Singh PK,
    13. Khillan V,
    14. Sachdeva N,
    15. Perlin DS,
    16. Meis JF
    . 2018. A multicentre study of antifungal susceptibility patterns among 350 Candida auris isolates (2009–17) in India: role of the ERG11 and FKS1 genes in azole and echinocandin resistance. J Antimicrob Chemother 73:891–899. doi:10.1093/jac/dkx480.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  6. 6.↵
    1. Rhodes J,
    2. Abdolrasouli A,
    3. Farrer RA,
    4. Cuomo CA,
    5. Aanensen DM,
    6. Armstrong-James D,
    7. Fisher MC,
    8. Schelenz S
    . 2018. Genomic epidemiology of the UK outbreak of the emerging human fungal pathogen Candida auris. Emerg Microbes Infect 7:43. doi:10.1038/s41426-018-0045-x.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  7. 7.↵
    1. Sarma S,
    2. Kumar N,
    3. Sharma S,
    4. Govil D,
    5. Ali T,
    6. Mehta Y,
    7. Rattan A
    . 2013. Candidemia caused by amphotericin B and fluconazole resistant Candida auris. Indian J Med Microbiol 31:90–91. doi:10.4103/0255-0857.108746.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  8. 8.↵
    1. Biagi MJ,
    2. Wiederhold NP,
    3. Gibas C,
    4. Wickes BL,
    5. Lozano V,
    6. Bleasdale SC,
    7. Danziger L
    . 2019. Development of high-level echinocandin resistance in a patient with recurrent Candida auris candidemia secondary to chronic candiduria. Open Forum Infect Dis 6:ofz262. doi:10.1093/ofid/ofz262.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  9. 9.↵
    1. Woodworth MH,
    2. Dynerman D,
    3. Crawford ED,
    4. Doernberg SB,
    5. Ramirez-Avila L,
    6. Serpa PH,
    7. Nichols A,
    8. Li LM,
    9. Lyden A,
    10. Tato CM,
    11. Miller S,
    12. Derisi JL,
    13. Langelier C
    . 2019. Sentinel case of Candida auris in the western United States following prolonged occult colonization in a returned traveler from India. Microb Drug Resist 25:677–680. doi:10.1089/mdr.2018.0408.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  10. 10.↵
    1. Biswas C,
    2. Sorrell TC,
    3. Djordjevic JT,
    4. Zuo X,
    5. Jolliffe KA,
    6. Chen SC
    . 2013. In vitro activity of miltefosine as a single agent and in combination with voriconazole or posaconazole against uncommon filamentous fungal pathogens. J Antimicrob Chemother 68:2842–2846. doi:10.1093/jac/dkt282.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Widmer F,
    2. Wright LC,
    3. Obando D,
    4. Handke R,
    5. Ganendren R,
    6. Ellis DH,
    7. Sorrell TC
    . 2006. Hexadecylphosphocholine (miltefosine) has broad-spectrum fungicidal activity and is efficacious in a mouse model of cryptococcosis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 50:414–421. doi:10.1128/AAC.50.2.414-421.2006.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. Wiederhold NP,
    2. Najvar LK,
    3. Bocanegra R,
    4. Kirkpatrick WR,
    5. Sorrell TC,
    6. Patterson TF
    . 2013. Limited activity of miltefosine in murine models of cryptococcal meningoencephalitis and disseminated cryptococcosis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 57:745–750. doi:10.1128/AAC.01624-12.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. 2017. Reference method for broth dilution antifungal susceptibility testing of yeasts. Approved standard, 4th edition. CLSI document M27-A4. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, Wayne, PA.
  14. 14.↵
    1. Odds FC
    . 2003. Synergy, antagonism, and what the chequerboard puts between them. J Antimicrob Chemother 52:1. doi:10.1093/jac/dkg301.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  15. 15.↵
    1. Soczo G,
    2. Kardos G,
    3. McNicholas PM,
    4. Balogh E,
    5. Gergely L,
    6. Varga I,
    7. Kelentey B,
    8. Majoros L
    . 2007. Correlation of posaconazole minimum fungicidal concentration and time kill test against nine Candida species. J Antimicrob Chemother 60:1004–1009. doi:10.1093/jac/dkm350.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  16. 16.↵
    1. Castro MD,
    2. Gomez MA,
    3. Kip AE,
    4. Cossio A,
    5. Ortiz E,
    6. Navas A,
    7. Dorlo TP,
    8. Saravia NG
    . 2017. Pharmacokinetics of miltefosine in children and adults with cutaneous leishmaniasis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 61:e02198-16. doi:10.1128/AAC.02198-16.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. 17.↵
    1. Dorlo TP,
    2. Rijal S,
    3. Ostyn B,
    4. de Vries PJ,
    5. Singh R,
    6. Bhattarai N,
    7. Uranw S,
    8. Dujardin JC,
    9. Boelaert M,
    10. Beijnen JH,
    11. Huitema AD
    . 2014. Failure of miltefosine in visceral leishmaniasis is associated with low drug exposure. J Infect Dis 210:146–153. doi:10.1093/infdis/jiu039.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Compain F,
    2. Botterel F,
    3. Sitterle E,
    4. Paugam A,
    5. Bougnoux ME,
    6. Dannaoui E
    . 2015. In vitro activity of miltefosine in combination with voriconazole or amphotericin B against clinical isolates of Scedosporium spp. J Med Microbiol 64:309–311. doi:10.1099/jmm.0.000019.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Imbert S,
    2. Palous M,
    3. Meyer I,
    4. Dannaoui E,
    5. Mazier D,
    6. Datry A,
    7. Fekkar A
    . 2014. In vitro combination of voriconazole and miltefosine against clinically relevant molds. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 58:6996–6998. doi:10.1128/AAC.03212-14.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
In Vitro Antifungal Susceptibility of the Emerging Multidrug-Resistant Pathogen Candida auris to Miltefosine Alone and in Combination with Amphotericin B
Yongqin Wu, Marissa Totten, Warda Memon, Chunmei Ying, Sean X. Zhang
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Jan 2020, 64 (2) e02063-19; DOI: 10.1128/AAC.02063-19

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.
In Vitro Antifungal Susceptibility of the Emerging Multidrug-Resistant Pathogen Candida auris to Miltefosine Alone and in Combination with Amphotericin B
(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
In Vitro Antifungal Susceptibility of the Emerging Multidrug-Resistant Pathogen Candida auris to Miltefosine Alone and in Combination with Amphotericin B
Yongqin Wu, Marissa Totten, Warda Memon, Chunmei Ying, Sean X. Zhang
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Jan 2020, 64 (2) e02063-19; DOI: 10.1128/AAC.02063-19
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • LETTER
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENT
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

KEYWORDS

antifungal activity
synergy
Candida auris
antifungal agents
antifungal susceptibility testing
miltefosine

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