Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1
Laboratorio de Micologı́a y Diagnóstico Molecular, Cátedra de Parasitologı́a y Micologı́a, Facultad de Bioquı́mica y Ciencias Biológicas,
Universidad Nacional del Litoral, Santa Fe, Argentina; 2Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientı́ficas y Tecnológicas (CONICET), CCT,
Santa Fe, Argentina; 3Medical and Experimental Mycology Group, Corporación para Investigaciones Biológicas (CIB), Medellı́n,
Colombia; 4Hospital general de Medellin ‘Luz Castro de Gutiérrez’ ESE, Medellı́n, Colombia; 5Universidad de Santander, Facultad de
Ciencias de la Salud, Grupo de Investigación CIENCIA UDES, Valledupar, Colombia; 6Laboratorios Nancy Flórez Garcı́a S.A.S., Valledupar,
Colombia; 7Centro de Investigaciones Microbiológicas del Cesar, CIMCE, Valledupar, Colombia; 8Clı́nica General del Norte, Barranquilla,
Colombia
*Corresponding author. Tel: !54 342 4575209; Fax: !54 342 4575216; E-mail: ggarcia@unl.edu.ar
Received 2 January 2019; returned 19 February 2019; revised 8 March 2019; accepted 2 April 2019
Background: Candida auris is an emerging MDR pathogen. It shows reduced susceptibility to azole drugs and, in
some strains, high amphotericin B MICs have been described. For these reasons, echinocandins were proposed
as first-line treatment for C. auris infections. However, information on how echinocandins and amphotericin B
act against this species is lacking.
Objectives: Our aim was to establish the killing kinetics of anidulafungin, caspofungin and amphotericin B
against C. auris by time–kill methodology and to determine if these antifungals behave as fungicidal or fungistat-
ic agents against this species.
Methods: The susceptibility of 50 C. auris strains was studied. Nine strains were selected (based on echinocandin
MICs) to be further studied. Minimal fungicidal concentrations, in vitro dose–response and time–kill patterns
were determined.
Results: Echinocandins showed lower MIC values than amphotericin B (geometric mean of 0.12 and 0.94 mg/L,
respectively). Anidulafungin and caspofungin showed no fungicidal activity at any concentration (maximum log
decreases in cfu/mL between 1.34 and 2.22). On the other hand, amphotericin B showed fungicidal activity, but
at high concentrations (2.00 mg/L). In addition, the tested polyene was faster than echinocandins at killing
50% of the initial inoculum (0.92 versus .8.00 h, respectively).
Conclusions: Amphotericin B was the only agent regarded as fungicidal against C. auris. Moreover, C. auris
should be considered tolerant to caspofungin and anidulafungin considering that their MFC:MIC ratios were
mostly 32 and that after 6 h of incubation the starting inoculum was not reduced in .90%.
C The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. All rights reserved.
V
For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.
2295
Dudiuk et al.
echinocandin susceptibilities (e.g. Candida parapsilosis sensu lato, Time–kill curves and in vitro dose–response studies
Candida lusitaniae and Candida guilliermondii).15,21–23 Despite the Time–kill curve assays were carried out with the nine selected C. auris
importance of C. auris, information about how echinocandin drugs strains by using microdilution plates and RPMI-1640 buffered with MOPS as
and amphotericin B act against this species is lacking. The aims of described previously.28 The isolates were grown for 24 h at 35 C on SDA
this study were to establish the killing kinetics of anidulafungin, plates. Caspofungin, anidulafungin and amphotericin B concentrations
caspofungin and amphotericin B against C. auris by time–kill meth- tested ranged from 0.12 to 8.00 mg/L. Inoculum suspensions of 1%105
cells/mL were used. Microdilution plates were incubated at 35 C for 2, 4, 6,
2296
Anidulafungin, caspofungin and amphotericin B against C. auris JAC
Table 1. Activities of caspofungin, anidulafungin and amphotericin B against isolates of C. auris (MICs, MFCs and MFC:MIC ratios)
Strain Pattern (CAS–AFG)a CAS AFG AMB CAS AFG AMB CAS AFG AMB
LMDM-1162 WT–WT 0.06 0.12 0.50 .8.00 .8.00 4.00 267 (T) 133 (T) 4 (FC)
NWT–WT set and 4 in the NWT–NWT group. None of the 23 strains to decrease the starting inoculum by half after 24 h (no IC50 values
classified as NWT–WT or NWT–NWT showed FKS1 hot spot muta- were obtained) for almost half of the studied C. auris strains
tions. Out of these strains, nine were selected (three WT–WT, four (Table 2 and Figure 1). Regarding anidulafungin, there were no
NWT–WT and two NWT–NWT strains) for further study (Table 1). statistically significant differences between the IC50 values
Caspofungin MFCs were .8 mg/L for all the tested strains obtained for the strains classified as WT or non-WT (arithmetic
(independent of their MICs). MFC values for anidulafungin were al- mean"0.244 versus 0.208, respectively; P"403).
most as high as those obtained for the other echinocandin (MFC Figure 2 depicts the obtained killing curves. For echinocandins,
GM"7.41 mg/L). However, anidulafungin was able to reach the two different slopes can be distinguished. The maximum
99.9% inhibition threshold in four strains, but at very high concen- decreases in cfu/mL were obtained at the 6 h timepoint. In these
trations (1 and 4 mg/L). Three of these strains were considered first hours, the killing activities were concentration independent for
WT for anidulafungin including the strain with the lowest MIC the two studied echinocandins (negative values of K that were not
of this drug in the entire collection (LMDM-1242). Regarding substantially modified by drug concentration augmentation).
amphotericin B, this polyene was able to kill 99.9% of the starting After 6 h of incubation, regrowth was observed (positive values
inoculum of the nine studied strains, with MFC values ranging from of K). This regrowth was concentration dependent for anidulafun-
2.00 to 4.00 mg/L (GM"2.72 mg/L). gin, but concentration independent for caspofungin. Concerning
Considering the MFC:MIC ratios,31,32 the only agent able to be the studied polyene, inflection points were also evident. However,
regarded as fungicidal against all the tested C. auris strains remarkable differences were seen when compared with echino-
(MFC:MIC ratios 4) was amphotericin B. On the other hand, these candins. Lethality rates (K values) were totally concentration
ratios for caspofungin and anidulafungin were higher (arithmetic dependent (Figure 3).
mean"110.33 and 105.22, respectively). Thus, C. auris should be Differences in the maximum log decreases in cfu/mL between
considered tolerant to the studied echinocandins (MFC:MIC ratios the different antifungal classes were observed. For echinocandins,
were 32 for all but two strains for caspofungin and for all but one the maximum log decreases in cfu/mL never surpassed 3 log
for anidulafungin) (Table 1). It has to be pointed out that these (99.9% of the initial inoculum) since these log reductions were be-
ratios were calculated considering a hypothetical value of 16 mg/L tween 1.34 and 2.22 for caspofungin and between 1.57 and 2.15
for strains whose MFCs were .8.00 mg/L. Thus, the three MFC:MIC for anidulafungin (reached at 0.50–1.00 mg/L caspofungin and
ratios regarded as fungistatic (.4, but ,32) are more likely to be between 0.25 and 0.50 mg/L anidulafungin). Thus, there was no
due to the high MIC values than to the low MFC values. fungicidal activity for the tested antifungals of this class at any
concentration and at any timepoint. On the other hand, the max-
imum log decreases for amphotericin B were achieved at concen-
Antifungal carry-over, in vitro dose–response studies trations 2.00 mg/L and were widely superior to 3 log decreases
and time–kill curves in cfu/mL (4.41–5.18 log decreases). K values were negative
No antifungal carry-over was observed for any of the used drugs or (indicating killing) for all the drugs against all the strains, with the
any of the C. auris strains. The lowest IC50 arithmetic means were exception of caspofungin against LMDM-1242, LMDM-1213 and
obtained for anidulafungin followed by that achieved by caspofun- LMDM-1234 (Table 2). Despite this clear negative trend, K values
gin and by amphotericin B (0.22, 0.63 and 0.74 mg/L, respectively) differed between the echinocandins and amphotericin B. The aver-
(Table 2) (P"0.005 for anidulafungin versus caspofungin, P"0.558 age K for anidulafungin and caspofungin was 5.7 and 12.8 times
for amphotericin B versus caspofungin and P"0.0001 for anidula- less negative than for amphotericin B, respectively (average K
fungin versus amphotericin B). However, caspofungin was not able arithmetic means for all nine C. auris strains were as follows:
2297
Dudiuk et al.
Table 2. Killing activity, killing kinetics and time to achieve 50% and 99.9% reduction from the starting inoculum of caspofungin, anidulafungin and
amphotericin B against C. auris
IC50 (mg/L) Average K (killing kinetics) (h#1) t50 (h)b t99.9 (h)b
Strain Pattern (CAS–AFG)a CAS AFG AMB CAS AFG AMB CAS AFG AMB CAS AFG AMB
CAS, caspofungin; AFG, anidulafungin; AMB, amphotericin B; NR, 50% inhibition never reached.
a
Echinocandin susceptibility patterns based on published ECOFFs.6
b
t50 and t99.9 were obtained using the average K of each strain [NK, no killing (K values were positive)].
80 AMB
Survival (%)
80
Survival (%)
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
–3 –2 –1 0 1 2 3 –3 –2 –1 0 1 2 3
Log2 drug concentration (mg/L) Log2 drug concentration (mg/L)
100
Survival (%)
80
60
40
20
0
–3 –2 –1 0 1 2 3
Log2 drug concentration (mg/L)
Figure 1. Archetypal in vitro dose–effect curves comparing the doses of caspofungin, anidulafungin and amphotericin B needed to reduce the initial
inoculum by 50% (IC50s) in WT–WT, NWT–WT and NWT–NWT groups (WT–WT, WT for both tested echinocandins; NWT–WT, non-WT for caspofungin
and WT for anidulafungin; and NWT–NWT, non-WT for both tested echinocandins).
anidulafungin, #0.096; caspofungin, #0.043; and amphotericin B, for amphotericin B, anidulafungin and caspofungin, respectively
#0.55). Moreover, the average K values for echinocandins were (Table 2). However, it has to be noted that caspofungin was not
very close to zero (at some concentrations they were .0, and ,0 able to reach this percentage of killing in one-third of the tested
for other drug concentrations) (Figure 3). The mean times needed C. auris strains. These strains were classified as WT–WT, NWT–WT
to kill 50% of the initial inoculum (t50) were 0.92, 11.77 and 8.60 h and NWT–NWT (one each), showing that the killing capability of
2298
Anidulafungin, caspofungin and amphotericin B against C. auris JAC
Caspofungin Anidulafungin Amphotericin B
WT-WT WT-WT WT-WT
8
7 7 7
6 6 6 0.12
Log cfu/mL
5 5 0.25
Log cfu/mL
Log cfu/mL
4 4 0.5
4
Log cfu/mL
0.25
Log cfu/mL
5 5
5 0.5
4 4 4
1
3 3 3 2
2 2 2 4
1 1 1 8
0 0 0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48
Time (h) Time (h) Time (h)
NWT-NWT
NWT-NWT NWT-NWT 8
8
8 7
7
7 6
6 0.12
Log cfu/mL
6
Log cfu/mL
5 0.25
Log cfu/mL
5 5
4 4 0.5
4 1
3 3
3 2
2 2 2
4
1 1 1 8
0 0 0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48
Time (h) Time (h) Time (h)
Figure 2. Representative time–kill plots following drug exposure for strains of each of the three echinocandin susceptibility groups (WT–WT, WT for
both tested echinocandins; NWT–WT, non-WT for caspofungin and WT for anidulafungin; and NWT–NWT, non-WT for both tested echinocandins).
Error bars are omitted to reduce graphic complexity.
caspofungin seems not to be related to its MIC values. For all the close to that observed for species traditionally considered resist-
tested strains and drugs, the minimum t50 values were obtained at ant to amphotericin B or susceptible to developing secondary re-
4% the strain’s MIC values. On the other hand, the time needed sistance to this drug (C. lusitaniae and C. guilliermondii).33–36 The
to reach a hypothetical fungicidal endpoint (99.9% inhibition) was rate of killing for C. auris by amphotericin B is concentration de-
.48 h for echinocandins for most of the strains (Table 2). As pendent, as described for C. lusitaniae and C. guilliermondii.
expected, t99.9 values for amphotericin B were lower than for However, we found that C. auris amphotericin B K values are not
caspofungin and anidulafungin (arithmetic mean"9.13 versus strain dependent (smaller range of K values).15,22 Moreover, in
.48 h) (P,0.01). However, these values were not related to amphotericin B-susceptible species (e.g. C. albicans), the 99.9%
amphotericin B MIC values (as for echinocandins) and were killing is reached rapidly (t99.9 2 h) and at the strains’ MIC val-
reached between 2% and 4% the MIC (Table 2). ues.15,22 In contrast, the 3 log reductions in cfu/mL were
achieved 3–4 times more slowly for C. auris than for amphoteri-
cin B-susceptible species and at amphotericin B concentrations
Discussion 4% their MICs. Notably, C. auris t99.9 values were also higher than
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work where the killing those obtained for C. lusitaniae16 and for C. guilliermondii.22
kinetics of caspofungin, anidulafungin and amphotericin B against Adding to these data, we also show that most of the strains
C. auris were compared. We found several similarities between our needed .2.00 mg/L amphotericin B to inhibit 99.9% of the start-
results and those obtained for other Candida species such as the ing inoculum. This concentration of drug is higher than the
taxonomically related C. lusitaniae and Candida species showing amphotericin B concentration needed to reach the 3 log de-
an intrinsic reduced echinocandin susceptibility phenotype such as crease in cfu/mL in C. guilliermondii, but similar to the polyene
the C. guilliermondii and C. parapsilosis species complex.22,29,33 We concentration needed to kill 99.9% of the starting inoculum of
found that the behaviour of amphotericin B against C. auris was amphotericin B-resistant C. lusitaniae strains.15,22,34
2299
Dudiuk et al.
–1.0 ing the fact that echinocandins are cell wall-acting antifungals).
This study provides evidence of the non-fungicidal activity of
–1.5 caspofungin and anidulafungin, and the extremely high ampho-
tericin B concentration needed to reach 99.9% inhibition. However,
–2.0 it has been known for some time that this type of study is far from
reflecting a real in vivo situation where, for example, the drug
–2.5
undergoes metabolism and elimination, the inoculum size is vari-
–3.0
able and diffusion/distribution restrictions exist in different
–3 –2 –1 0 1 2 3 tissues.11 Moreover, pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic animal
Log2 drug concentration (mg/L) models suggested that echinocandins are the most efficacious
drug class against C. auris.43 Despite these limitations and consid-
(c) LMDM-1217 (NWT-NWT) CAS
ering the few therapeutic options available to treat C. auris infec-
0.5 AFG
tions, it is clear that further studies are needed to uncover the
AMB
mechanism involved in these phenotypes and to determine if
0.0
these in vitro observations have any clinical implications.
–0.5
Acknowledgements
K (cfu/mL/h)
–1.0
We thank Dr Stella Vaira (Mathematic Department, Facultad de
–1.5 Bioquı́mica y Ciencias Biológicas, Universidad Nacional del Litoral) for
helpful suggestions regarding statistics.
–2.0
–2.5
Funding
This study was supported by the Science, Technology and Productive
–3.0
–3 –2 –1 0 1 2 3
Innovation Ministry (MinCyT; Argentina) grant PICT2016/1985 (to
Log2 drug concentration (mg/L) G. G.-E.). F. L. and D. M. each have a fellowship from CONICET
(Argentina). D. M. has received an Overseas Scholarship from the British
Figure 3. Relationship of K values (calculated from regression lines) and Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy (Overseas Scholarship
caspofungin, anidulafungin and amphotericin B concentrations for WT– BSAC-2017-0022). C. D. has a postdoctoral fellowship from CONICET.
WT (a), NWT–WT (b) and NWT–NWT (c) groups (WT–WT, WT for both
tested echinocandins; NWT–WT, non-WT for caspofungin and WT for
anidulafungin; and NWT–NWT, non-WT for both tested echinocandins).
Echinocandin regression lines are virtually parallel to the concentration Transparency declarations
axis (values near 0). None to declare.
2300
Anidulafungin, caspofungin and amphotericin B against C. auris JAC
19 Gil-Alonso S, Jauregizar N, Canton E et al. Comparison of the in vitro activ-
References ity of echinocandins against Candida albicans, Candida dubliniensis, and
1 Ben-Ami R, Berman J, Novikov A et al. Multidrug-resistant Candida haemu- Candida africana by time–kill curves. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2015; 82:
lonii and C. auris, Tel Aviv, Israel. Emerg Infect Dis 2017; 23. doi: 57–61.
10.3201/eid2302.161486. 20 Gil-Alonso S, Jauregizar N, Canton E et al. In vitro fungicidal activities of
2 Lee WG, Shin JH, Uh Y et al. First three reported cases of nosocomial funge- anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin against Candida glabrata,
mia caused by Candida auris. J Clin Microbiol 2011; 49: 3139–42. Candida bracarensis, and Candida nivariensis evaluated by time–kill studies.
2301
Dudiuk et al.
37 Clancy CJ, Huang H, Cheng S et al. Characterizing the effects of caspofun- 40 May J, Shannon K, King A et al. Glycopeptide tolerance in Staphylococcus
gin on Candida albicans, Candida parapsilosis, and Candida glabrata isolates aureus. J Antimicrob Chemother 1998; 42: 189–97.
by simultaneous time–kill and postantifungal-effect experiments. Antimicrob 41 Singh M, Matsuo M, Sasaki T et al. In vitro tolerance of drug-naive
Agents Chemother 2006; 50: 2569–72. Staphylococcus aureus strain FDA209P to vancomycin. Antimicrob Agents
38 Sader HS, Fritsche TR, Jones RN. Daptomycin bactericidal activity and cor- Chemother 2017; 61: e01154-16.
relation between disk and broth microdilution method results in testing of 42 Gefen O, Balaban NQ. The importance of being persistent: heterogeneity
Staphylococcus aureus strains with decreased susceptibility to vancomycin. of bacterial populations under antibiotic stress. FEMS Microbiol Rev 2009; 33:
2302