Cited by 127Antifungal resistance and susceptibilityFungal Plant Pathogen ControlAntibiotic Resistance in Bacteria

Isavuconazole, micafungin, and 8 comparator antifungal agents' susceptibility profiles for common and uncommon opportunistic fungi collected in 2013: temporal analysis of antifungal drug resistance using CLSI species-specific clinical breakpoints and proposed epidemiological cutoff values

Pfaller, M.A., Rhomberg, P.R., Messer, S.A., Jones, R.N., Castanheira, M.·2015·Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease

Abstract

The in vitro activities of isavuconazole, micafungin, and 8 comparator antifungal agents were determined for 1613 clinical isolates of fungi (1320 isolates of Candida spp., 155 of Aspergillus spp., 103 of non-Candida yeasts, and 35 non-Aspergillus molds) collected during a global survey conducted in 2013. The vast majority of the isolates of the 21 different species of Candida, with the exception of Candida glabrata (MIC90, 2 μg/mL), Candida krusei (MIC90, 1 μg/mL), and Candida guilliermondii (MIC90, 8 μg/mL), were inhibited by ≤0.25 μg/mL of isavuconazole. C. glabrata and C. krusei were largely inhibited by ≤1 μg/mL of isavuconazole. Resistance to fluconazole was seen in 0.5% of Candida albicans isolates, 11.1% of C. glabrata isolates, 2.5% of Candida parapsilosis isolates, 4.5% of Candida tropicalis isolates, and 20.0% of C. guilliermondii isolates. Resistance to the echinocandins was restricted to C. glabrata (1.3-2.1%) and C. tropicalis (0.9-1.8%). All agents except for the echinocandins were active against 69 Cryptococcus neoformans isolates, and the triazoles, including isavuconazole, were active against the other yeasts. Both the mold active triazoles as well as the echinocandins were active against 155 Aspergillus spp. isolates belonging to 10 species/species complex. In general, there was low resistance levels to the available systemically active antifungal agents in a large, contemporary (2013), global collection of molecularly characterized yeasts and molds. Resistance to azoles and echinocandins was most prominent among isolates of C. glabrata, C. tropicalis, and C. guilliermondii.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2015.04.008

Cites

73 of 73 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Up to 96% of C. auris may exhibit resistance to fluconazole, compared with 0.5-2% for C. albicans, 4-9% for C. tropicalis, 2-6% for C. parapsilosis, and 11-13% for C. glabrata.

    “Indeed, up to 96% of C. auris may exhibit resistance to fluconazole, an exceptionally high value compared to 0.5–2% for C. albicans, 4–9% for C. tropicalis, 2–6% for C. parapsilosis, and 11–13% for C. glabrata [16,40,41].”
  • Although varying rates of fluconazole resistance have been observed for C. albicans in particular types of infection, resistance rates remain low in general.

    “Although varying rates of fluconazole resistance have been observed for C. albicans in particular types of infection, resistance rates remain low in general.9 , 31 , 32”
  • Estimates of non-susceptible or resistant C. glabrata clinical isolates across several geographic regions are: fluconazole 3.4%-70%, amphotericin B 2.5%-60%, caspofungin 1.3%-16.2%, and 5-flucytosine 0.8%-35%.

    “Estimates regarding the percentage of non-susceptible or resistant C. glabrata clinical isolates against four antifungal drugs used in clinical practice, across several geographic regions are: fluconazole, 3.4%–70%; amphotericin B, 2.5%–60%; caspofungin, 1.3%–16.2%, and 5-flucytosine, 0.8%–35%, which are clearly concerning numbers [171,173,174,175,176,177,178,179,180,181,182,183,184,185,186,187,”

    From Candida glabrata Biofilms: How Far Have We Come? (2017) · cites this paper as [176]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pfaller, M. A., Rhomberg, P. R., Messer, S. A., Jones, R. N., & Castanheira, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Iowa (US)
  • JMI Laboratories (US)
Corresponding author
Pfaller, M.A.
Venue
Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-08
Volume
82
Issue
4
Pages
303-313
ISSN
0732-8893 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2108677302
Cited by
127
References
73
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 4
FWCI
15.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Pfizer
  • Astellas Pharma Global Development
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Antifungal resistance and susceptibility
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Fungal Plant Pathogen Control
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Medicine › Antibiotic Resistance in Bacteria
Keywords
isavuconazole, micafungin, antifungal resistance, Candida glabrata, Candida tropicalis, Candida guilliermondii, Candida albicans, Candida parapsilosis, Candida krusei, Cryptococcus neoformans, Aspergillus, echinocandins, triazoles, fluconazole resistance, azole resistance, epidemiological cut-off values, clinical breakpoints, opportunistic fungal pathogens, antifungal susceptibility, temporal trends
MeSH terms
Micafungin, Antifungal Agents, Fungi, Humans, Microbial Sensitivity Tests, Mycoses, Nitriles, Opportunistic Infections, Pyridines, Triazoles, Global Health, Drug Resistance, Fungal, Echinocandins, Lipopeptides

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review