Cited by 778Antifungal resistance and susceptibilityFungal Plant Pathogen ControlFungal and yeast genetics research

Increasing Echinocandin Resistance in Candida glabrata: Clinical Failure Correlates With Presence of FKS Mutations and Elevated Minimum Inhibitory Concentrations

Open access
Alexander, Barbara D., Johnson, Melissa D., Pfeiffer, Christopher D., Jiménez-Ortigosa, Cristina, Catania, Jelena, Booker, Rachel, Castanheira, Mariana, Messer, Shawn A. +2 more·2013·Clinical Infectious Diseases

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Fluconazole (FLC) resistance is common in C. glabrata and echinocandins are often used as first-line therapy. Resistance to echinocandin therapy has been associated with FKS1 and FKS2 gene alterations. METHODS: We reviewed records of all patients with C. glabrata bloodstream infection at Duke Hospital over the past decade (2001-2010) and correlated treatment outcome with minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) results and the presence of FKS gene mutations. For each isolate, MICs to FLC and echinocandins (anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin) and FKS1 and FKS2 gene sequences were determined. RESULTS: Two hundred ninety-three episodes (313 isolates) of C. glabrata bloodstream infection were analyzed. Resistance to echinocandins increased from 4.9% to 12.3% and to FLC from 18% to 30% between 2001 and 2010, respectively. Among the 78 FLC resistant isolates, 14.1% were resistant to 1 or more echinocandin. Twenty-five (7.9%) isolates harbored a FKS mutation. The predictor of a FKS mutant strain was prior echinocandin therapy (stepwise multivariable analysis, odds ratio, 19.647 [95% confidence interval, 7.19-58.1]). Eighty percent (8/10) of patients infected with FKS mutants demonstrating intermediate or resistant MICs to an echinocandin and treated with an echinocandin failed to respond or responded initially but experienced a recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Echinocandin resistance is increasing, including among FLC-resistant isolates. The new Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute clinical breakpoints differentiate wild-type from C. glabrata strains bearing clinically significant FKS1/FKS2 mutations. These observations underscore the importance of knowing the local epidemiology and resistance patterns for Candida within institutions and susceptibility testing of echinocandins for C. glabrata to guide therapeutic decision making.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/cid/cit136

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Recent reports indicate an increase in multidrug-resistant C. glabrata isolates in the United States.

    “Recent reports indicate an increase in multidrug-resistant C. glabrata isolates in the United States (19,20).”

    From Population-Based Active Surveillance for Culture-Confirmed Candidemia — Four Sites, United States, 2012–2016 (2019) · cites this paper as [20]

    The Discussion reports increasing resistance to both fluconazole and echinocandins in C. glabrata, including coemergence in the same isolates. But the study’s data come from a single center, Duke Hospital, and the Discussion notes substantial variation between centers; it does not establish an increase across the United States. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • 12 out of 59 (20.34%) descendant strains carry proved clinically significant FKS2 point mutations, including F659del, F659S, F659C, and S663F.

    “12 out of 59 (20.34%) descendant strains carry proved clinically significant FKS2 point mutations, including F659del, F659S, F659C, and S663F [38, 39, 40].”

    From Calcineurin‐Dependent Stress Adaptation Enables Caspofungin Heteroresistance Leading to Stable Resistance in <i>Candida Glabrata</i> (2026) · cites this paper as [40]

    The Treatment and Mortality Outcomes section links FKS1/FKS2 mutants with treatment failure or recurrence, supporting the general clinical relevance of FKS mutations. But this paper does not establish that 12 of 59 descendant strains carried the listed FKS2 mutations; Table 2 lists F659V and S663P rather than the specific variants named in the claim. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Fluconazole resistance has been reported in up to 75% of C. glabrata isolates in single center surveys, and resistance to the echinocandins ranges from 0% to 24% in larger studies.

    “Fluconazole resistance has been reported in up to 75% of C. glabrata isolates in single center surveys, and resistance to the echinocandins ranges from 0% to 24% in larger studies.27,111–113”

    From Epidemiology of Invasive Candidiasis (2024) · cites this paper as [111]

    The Discussion (page unavailable) reports <1% echinocandin resistance in a survey of 747 isolates from 90 hospitals and none detected at one institution, supporting the low end of the claimed range. The MIC/Susceptibility Results (page unavailable) report fluconazole resistance reaching 30.1% at this study’s center, but our copy does not substantiate the claimed 75% fluconazole or 24% echinocandin figures. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Rates of echinocandin resistance tend to parallel increases in fluconazole resistance as demonstrated by Alexander et al. at a 10-year single center survey.

    “Rates of echinocandin resistance tend to parallel increases in fluconazole resistance as demonstrated by Alexander et al at a 10-year single center survey.111”

    From Epidemiology of Invasive Candidiasis (2024) · cites this paper as [111]

  • Other studies on C. glabrata report that 14% of fluconazole-resistant strains exhibit resistance to at least one echinocandin, with 3.5% MDR at Duke University hospital, 7% MDR at MD Anderson Cancer Center, and azole resistance in 36% of echinocandin-resistant strains in a five-year USA surveillance study.

    “Other studies on C. glabrata report that 14% of fluconazole-resistant strains exhibit resistance to at least one echinocandin and a total of 3.5% of MDR cases were noted in Duke University hospital [48], 7% of MDR at MD Anderson Cancer Center [45], and a resistance to azoles in 36% echinocandin-resistant strains was indicated in a five-year surveillance study in the USA [49].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [2]2. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Reference method for broth dilution antifungal susceptibility testing of yeasts. Approved Standard-Third Edition. CLSI document M27-A3 (ISBN 1-56238-666- 2). Wayne, PA: CLSI, 2008.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Alexander, B. D., Johnson, M. D., Pfeiffer, C. D., Jiménez-Ortigosa, C., Catania, J., Booker, R., Castanheira, M., Messer, S. A., Perlin, D. S., & Pfaller, M. A.
Affiliations
  • Duke University (US)
  • Campbell University (US)
  • JMI Laboratories (US)
  • Rutgers New Jersey Medical School (US)
Corresponding author
Alexander, Barbara D.
Venue
Clinical Infectious Diseases
Published
2013-03-13
Volume
56
Issue
12
Pages
1724-1732
ISSN
  • 1058-4838 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-6591
OpenAlex
W2128917111
Cited by
778
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 33 · 2025: 39 · 2024: 54 · 2023: 49 · 2022: 40 · 2021: 58 · 2020: 64 · 2019: 68 · 2018: 62 · 2017: 79 · 2016: 62 · 2015: 73 · 2014: 78 · 2013: 19
FWCI
56.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Infectious Diseases (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (AI069397, K24AI072522, R01AI069397, AI072522)
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 Biology › Fungal and yeast genetics research
Keywords
Candida glabrata, echinocandin resistance, fluconazole resistance, FKS1 mutations, bloodstream infection, anidulafungin, caspofungin, micafungin, minimum inhibitory concentration, treatment failure, antifungal susceptibility testing, clinical breakpoints
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Antifungal Agents, Candidiasis, Child, Child, Preschool, Female, Fungal Proteins, Glucosyltransferases, Humans, Infant, Infant, Newborn, Male, Membrane Proteins, Microbial Sensitivity Tests, Middle Aged, Mutation, Retrospective Studies, Treatment Outcome, Drug Resistance, Fungal, Candida glabrata, Echinocandins

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