A Pragmatic Approach to Susceptibility Classification of Yeasts without EUCAST Clinical Breakpoints
1
Unit of Mycology, Statens Serum Institut, DK-2300 Copenhagen, Denmark
2
Department of Medical Microbiology, Hacettepe University Medical School, Ankara 06100, Turkey
3
Department of Clinical Microbiology, Rigshospitalet, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark
4
Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, DK-1165 Copenhagen, Denmark
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
Share the senior author position.
J. Fungi 2022, 8(2), 141; https://doi.org/10.3390/jof8020141
Submission received: 10 December 2021
/
Revised: 14 January 2022
/
Accepted: 15 January 2022
/
Published: 30 January 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Fungal Infections: From Diagnostics to Treatments)
Abstract
:EUCAST has established clinical breakpoints for the six most common Candida species and Cryptococcus neoformans but not for less common yeasts because sufficient evidence is lacking. Consequently, the question “How to interpret the MIC?” for other yeasts often arises. We propose a pragmatic classification for amphotericin B, anidulafungin, fluconazole, and voriconazole MICs against 30 different rare yeasts. This classification takes advantage of MIC data for more than 4000 isolates generated in the EUCAST Development Laboratory for Fungi validated by alignment to published EUCAST MIC data. The classification relies on the following two important assumptions: first, that when isolates are genetically related, pathogenicity and intrinsic susceptibility patterns may be similar; and second, that even if species are not phylogenetically related, the rare yeasts will likely respond to therapy, provided the MIC is comparable to that against wild-type isolates of more prevalent susceptible species because rare yeasts are most likely “rare” due to a lower pathogenicity. In addition, the treatment recommendations available in the current guidelines based on the in vivo efficacy data and clinical experience are taken into consideration. Needless to say, it is of utmost importance (a) to ascertain that the species identification is correct (using MALDI-TOF or sequencing), and (b) to re-test the isolate once or twice to confirm that the MIC is representative for the isolate (because of the inherent variability in MIC determinations). We hope this pragmatic guidance is helpful until evidence-based EUCAST breakpoints can be formally established.
1. Introduction
The goal of in vitro antifungal susceptibility testing (AFST) according to the EUCAST (European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing) method is to inform the clinicians whether an antifungal drug is appropriate for an infection caused by a specific fungal isolate [1]. EUCAST clinical breakpoints allow classification of the organism as “susceptible” or “resistant” to standard dosing. Furthermore, EUCAST has a third category “susceptible, Increased exposure” indicating that the organism is susceptible if higher than standard exposure is achieved, either by increasing the dose or if the compound is concentrated at the site of infection [1,2]. EUCAST breakpoints are established taking the following available parameters into consideration: (a) dosing regimens used; (b) MIC distributions from multiple laboratories; (c) species- and compound-specific epidemiological cut-off values (ECOFFs); (d) pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic relationships and targets associated with outcome, and finally, (e) clinical outcome data by species and MIC [3].
Unfortunately, many fungal species still lack breakpoints for some or all antifungal agents [1]. This particularly applies to the uncommon or rare Candida species and other yeasts, which, although being reported as causative agents of invasive infections in various multi-centre or nationwide studies, are indeed many fold less common [4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12] (Table 1). The lack of breakpoints complicates the interpretation of antifungal susceptibility test results and consequently the optimal choice of therapy. ESCMID and ECMM joint clinical guidelines were issued in 2014 for diagnosis and treatment of rare invasive yeast infections [13] and were recently revised as the global guideline as an initiative of ECMM in cooperation with ISHAM and ASM [14]. These guidelines do not include breakpoints for interpretation of individual MICs but do describe the level of evidence of clinical efficacy and recommended treatment.
Here, we discuss basic concepts of susceptibility testing and associated terminology. Furthermore, we discuss how to proceed when faced with an MIC against a yeast without breakpoint. Finally, we comment on various species without breakpoints and provide a pragmatic approach to interpretation of antifungal susceptibility test results for amphotericin B, anidulafungin, fluconazole, and voriconazole.
Of note, fungal taxonomy is under constant and considerable revision. While many genera have both teleomorphic (sexual state) and anamorphic (asexual state) names, the “One Fungus One Name” initiative strives to determine one current name for each species. Furthermore, DNA-based phylogeny studies have demonstrated cryptic species that were previously morphologically or phenotypically indistinguishable from parent species, and genera and species name changes are abundant and ongoing [15,16]. In this article, we use mainly the traditional anamorph name (current name) in concordance with EUCAST documents. A list of current and previous yeast species names used in this document is available in Supplementary List S1.
2. What Is in an MIC?
Susceptibility data describe how a given isolate, grown under standardised conditions, responds to increasing concentrations of antifungal agents in the laboratory. The lowest concentration of the drug (mg/L) needed to achieve a given endpoint of suppressed growth is reported as an MIC (minimal inhibitory concentration). The growth is influenced by the media, nutrient concentrations, inoculum size, temperature, incubation time, endpoint definition (often in relation to an antifungal free growth control), microplate type, and, finally, antifungal concentrations. Historically, national reference methods have been developed and proposed, but these are now virtually all replaced by the methodologies and breakpoints developed and documented by EUCAST in Europe and CLSI in the USA [1,2,17,18,19,20]. Both the EUCAST and CLSI reference methods for testing yeasts are broth microdilution methods, and the methods are more alike than different. Yet the following differences between EUCAST E.Def 7.3.2 and CLSI M27 4th ed. are worth noticing: a 10-fold higher glucose concentration, a 100-fold higher yeast conidia inoculum, flat-bottom wells and spectrophotometric endpoint reading for EUCAST compared to round-bottom plates and visual endpoint reading for CLSI [2,18]. Although harmonisation efforts have been undertaken (including reducing the reading time for CLSI MICs from 48 to 24 h and introducing species-specific breakpoints), MICs obtained by the different methods still differ for a number of agents and species and so do the corresponding breakpoints [21,22,23,24].
Clinical breakpoints are dependent on reliable species identification of the isolates. This is particularly true when MICs are interpreted in clinical practice based on single determinations, given the inherent variation in the test. Cryptic species may have inherently different susceptibility than the parent species, which may or may not have clinical relevance. Examples are C. orthopsilosis and C. metapsilosis, which have previously not always been differentiated from C. parapsilosis sensu stricto. One other example is Cryptococcus gattii, which has now been differentiated from C. neoformans-gattii species complex [12,25,26,27]. Clinical breakpoints are revised as needed when new or more information on MIC distributions, target mutations, PK-PD and clinical outcome becomes available.
Table 1.
Overview of yeast species distribution among invasive infections based on selected studies.
Table 1.
Overview of yeast species distribution among invasive infections based on selected studies.
| Country/Region, Type of the Study [Reference] | Asian Multi-centre (25 Hospitals) [4] | Spain, Multi-centre (29 Centres) [5] | Sweden, Nationwide [6] | Italy, Lombardy Multi-centre (12 Hospitals) [7] | Denmark Nationwide [8,9] | Greece Single Centre (Tertiary Hospital) [10] | Norway Nationwide [11] | SENTRY 39 Countries [12] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Period (year) | 2010–2011 | 2010–2011 | 2015–2016 | 2016–2017 | 2012–2018 | 2009–2018 | 2004–2012 | 2006–2016 |
| Infection type | Blood/bone marrow | Bloodstream | Bloodstream | Bloodstream | Bloodstream | Bloodstream | Bloodstream | Bloodstream/Invasive |
| Main identification procedures 1 | Variable methods Molecular ID (four) | ITS sequencing (all isolates) | >96% identified also by MALDI-TOF MS or VITEK MS | VITEK 2 (one), MALDI-TOF-MS, (two), VITEK MS (nine) | MALDI-TOF, ITS sequencing | VITEK 2 and Auxacolor | VITEK 2 and API 32. MALDI-TOF since 2011 Molecular ID | Sequence-based or proteomic methods |
| Yeasts isolates, n | 2155 | 781 | 487 | 1020 | 3379 | 477 | 1724 | 15,312 |
| Candida, n (%) 2 | 1988 (92.3) | 766 (98.1) | 485 (99.6) | 1006 (98.6) | 3333 (98.6) | 449 (94.1) | 1724 | 15,312 |
| C. albicans | 348 (44.6) | 267 (54.8) | 547 (53.6) | 1540 (45.6) | 186 (39.0) | 1168 (67.7) | 7179 (46.9) | |
| C. glabrata SC 3 | 103 (13.2) | 96 (19.7) | 205 (20.1) | 1084 (32.1) | 48 (10.1) | 255 (14.8) | 2860 (18.7) | |
| C. parapsilosis SC 3 | 191 (24.5) | 44 (9.0) | 161 (15.8) | 126(3.7) | 167 (35.0) | 74 (4.3) | 2433 (15.9) | |
| C. tropicalis | 59 (7.6) | 18 (3.7) | 56 (5.5) | 158 (4.7) | 31 (6.5) | 112 (6.7) | 1418 (9.3) | |
| C. krusei | 15 (1.9) | 14 (2.9) | 10 (1.0) | 148 (4.4) | 5 (1.0) | 23 (1.3) | 421 (2.7) | |
| Rare Candida n (%) | 50 (6.4) | 46 (9.4) | 27 (2.6) | 277 (8.2) | 12 (2.5) | 92 (5.3) | 1001 (6.5) | |
| C. dubliniensis | 4 (0.5) | 18 (3.7) | 4 (0.4) | 144 (4.3) | 2 (0.4) | 46 (2.7) | 264 (1.7) | |
| C. guilliermondii | 13 (1.7) | 7 (0.7) | 14 (0.4) | 8 (0.5) | 91 (0.6) | |||
| C. kefyr | 4 (0.5) | 5 (1.0) | 3 (0.3) | 21 (0.6) | 3 (0.6) | 7 (0.4) | 94 (0.6) | |
| C. lipolytica | 4 (0.5) | 1 (0.2) | 1 (0.2) | 1 (0.1) | 10 (0.1) | |||
| C. lusitaniae | 10 (1.3) | 10 (2.1) | 8 (0.8) | 41 (1.2) | 2 (0.4) | 25 (1.5) | 277 (1.8) | |
| C. metapsilosis | 2 (0.3) | 4 (0.1) | 33 (0.2) | |||||
| C. orthopsilosis | 7 (0.9) | 2 (0.4) | 8 (0.2) | 82 (0.5) | ||||
| C. pelliculosa | 2 (0.3) | 4 (0.8) | 9 (0.3) | 2 (0.1) | 22 (0.1) | |||
| Other Candida spp. | 4 (0.5) | 6 (1.2) | 5 (0.5) | 36 (1.1) | 4 (0.8) | 3 (0.2) | 128 (0.8) | |
| Other yeasts, n (%) | 167 (7.7) | 15 (1.9) | 2 (0.4) | 14 (1.4) | 46 (1.4) | 28 (5.9) | ||
| Cryptococcus spp. | 109 (5.1) | 5 (0.6) | 1 (0.2) | 5 (0.5) | 14 (0.4) | 3 (0.6) | ||
| Trichosporon spp. | 23 (1.1) | 3 (0.4) | 1 (0.03) | 4 (0.8) | ||||
| Rhodutorula spp. | 10 (0.5) | 2 (0.3) | 2 (0.2) | 3 (0.1) | 12 (2.5) | |||
| M. capitatus 4 | 3 (0.4) | 4 (0.1) | ||||||
| M. clavatus 5 | 3 (0.3) | 2 (0.1) | ||||||
| K. (Pichia) ohmeri 6 | 7 (0.3) | 1 (0.1) | ||||||
| Malassezia spp. | 4 (0.2) | |||||||
| L. elongisporus 7 | 1 (0.1) | 1 (0.03) | ||||||
| E. dermatitidis 8 | 1 (0.1) | |||||||
| S. cerevisiae 9 | 1 (0.2) | 3 (0.3) | 18 (0.5) | 9 (1.9) | ||||
| Other spp. (no ID) | 14 (0.6) | 3 (0.1) |
1 In supplement to classical morphology. 2 Yeast isolates with known and previously used Candida anamorphs have for comparison all been named with their Candida names, even if they now would be considered in other genera (e.g., Pichia, Wickerhamomyces, Metschnikowia, Yarrowia, etc.). Grey shading is used if information is not available. Colour codes are used to highlight differences in proportional species distribution as follows: <0.5% (light yellow); 0.5–0.9% (light orange), 1–5% (light green), 6–10% (green); >10% (blue). Fields left blank when no isolates of a given species were found. 3 For studies carried out in Greece (stated) and presumably Lombardy and Norway, only C. parapsilosis and C. glabrata species complex are named. 4 Magnusiomyces capitatus. 5 Magnusiomyces capitatus/Saprochaeta clavata. 6 Kodamaea ohmeri. 7 Lodderomyces elongisporus. 8 Exophiala dermatitidis. 9 Saccharomyces cerevisiae.
3. Variation of MICs and Epidemiological Cut-Off Values
In vitro resistance may be primary (innate, inherent, intrinsic) or secondary (acquired). Primary resistance is the natural resistance of a fungal order, genus, or species to an antifungal class or a single antifungal agent as a consequence of functional and structural characteristics. In contrast, acquired resistance describes the situation when isolates from a normally susceptible species become less susceptible or resistant, owing to molecular mechanisms such as target gene mutations or target gene or efflux pump upregulation [28,29].
Because of inherent variation associated with phenotypic susceptibility testing, MICs of wild-type isolates (without acquired resistance) of a given species group together in a bell-shaped Gaussian distribution within a range of +/− one to two two-fold dilution steps around a “modal” (most common) MIC (Figure 1). The modal MIC represents the “true” MIC of the species [30]. With a normal Gaussian distribution, the MIC50 (the MIC that encompasses 50% of isolates) will be identical to the modal MIC. The epidemiological cut-off value (abbreviated as ECOFF by EUCAST and ECV by CLSI) is the MIC/MEC that defines the upper limit of the MICs of the phenotypical wild-type population. MICs higher than those encompassed within the Gaussian distribution cannot be explained by inherent variation but represent isolates with acquired resistance mechanisms. The clinical implication of such elevated MICs depends on the dose that can be given. Isolates with acquired resistance may form a hump, a tail, or a second Gaussian distribution to the right, depending on the number of resistant isolates and the magnitude of the MIC elevation (Figure 1).
4. The Difference between ECOFFs and Clinical Breakpoints
ECOFFs are defined as the highest MIC value for wild-type isolates (isolates without phenotypically detectable acquired and mutational resistance mechanisms to the agent in question) and are determined solely on the basis of MIC distributions. EUCAST set criteria for setting ECOFFs, including minimum number of data sets, minimum number of isolates per data set and overall, and rules for qualifying data sets as acceptable or not and defined several ECOFFs or tentative ECOFFs (tECOFFs) (Table 2) [31]. ECOFFs alone neither provide a susceptibility interpretation nor work as an indicator for therapeutic outcome as wild-type isolates can be susceptible, susceptible Increased exposure, or resistant, depending on the species, drug, and dose that can be achieved in the patient (Figure 1). However, ECOFFs allow classification of isolates as wild-type, i.e., “normal” (meaning the clinician can rely on his/her experience with that particular microorganism and assume that existence of secondary resistance-related mutations is not likely) or non-wild-type (meaning the isolate has acquired resistance mechanisms and may not respond as well as other isolates in that species).
Clinical breakpoints incorporate knowledge about wild-type MIC distributions, dosing, clinical outcome data (clinical trials and in vitro animal experiments), and pharmacodynamics/pharmacokinetic parameters [32,33]. When available, knowledge about target gene mutations and their clinical implications is also taken into account. Ideally, it should be clearly demonstrated that a licensed dosage will give an exposure sufficient to achieve the optimal PK/PD index for wild-type isolates (with MICs up to the ECOFF) and result in a good clinical outcome. The breakpoints are established to identify isolates with acquired resistance conferring less likelihood for treatment efficacy. Importantly, as inherent variation in susceptibility testing explains the MIC variation within the wild-type population (end thus below the ECOFF), breakpoints should be set without bisecting the wild-type distribution as this would lead to random classification of wild-type isolates. In most cases the breakpoint is the same value as the ECOFF for susceptible species, either because the standard dose has been selected as the lowest dose that safely covers wild-type isolates (to limit the risk of unnecessary toxicity) or because sufficient evidence is not available to determine what degree of MIC elevation can occur without negatively affecting efficacy.
Table 2.
Overview of the species and compounds for which EUCAST ECOFFs or tentative ECOFFs (tECOFFs indicated in brackets) have been established for yeast species [1]. A dash denotes that an ECOFF has not been established for that particular organism and drug.
Table 2.
Overview of the species and compounds for which EUCAST ECOFFs or tentative ECOFFs (tECOFFs indicated in brackets) have been established for yeast species [1]. A dash denotes that an ECOFF has not been established for that particular organism and drug.
| Species | MIC mg/L | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AMB | CAS 1 | MFG | AFG | FLC | VRC | ITC | POS | ISA | 5FC | |
| C. albicans | 1 | - | 0.016 | 0.03 | 0.5 | 0.03 | 0.06 | 0.06 | - | - |
| C. dubliniensis | 0.25 | - | - | - | [0.5] | 0.03 | 0.06 | 0.06 | - | - |
| C. glabrata | 1 | - | 0.03 | 0.06 | 16 | 1 | 2 | 1 | - | - |
| C. guilliermondii | [0.5] | - | - | - | [16] | - | 2 | 0.25 | - | - |
| C. kefyr | [1] | - | - | - | [1] | - | - | - | - | - |
| C. krusei | 1 | - | 0.25 | 0.06 | 128 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | - | - |
| C. lusitaniae | [0.5] | - | - | - | - | - | 0.125 | - | - | - |
| C. parapsilosis | 1 | - | 2 | 4 | 2 | 0.06 | 0.125 | 0.06 | - | - |
| C. tropicalis | 1 | - | 0.06 | 0.06 | 1 | 0.125 | 0.125 | 0.06 | - | - |
| Cryptococcus neoformans | [1] | - | - | - | - | 0.5 | - | 0.5 | - | - |
| Cryptococcus gattii | [0.5] | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1 | - | - |
| S. cerevisiae | [0.5] | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
1 EUCAST does not currently recommend susceptibility testing of caspofungin because of significant inter-laboratory variation in MIC ranges. AMB: Amphotericin B, CAS: Caspofungin, MFG: Micafungin, AFG: Anidulafungin, FLC: Fluconazole, VRC: Voriconazole, ITC: Itraconazole, POS: Posaconazole, ISA: Isavuconazole. 5FC: Flucytosine.
5. Pragmatic Guidance for MIC Interpretation in the Absence of Breakpoints
5.1. General Considerations
For many rare yeasts, sufficient data neither for ECOFF nor for breakpoint setting have been available. Until breakpoints become available our pragmatic conceptual approach and resulting recommendations in Table 3 regarding “how to interpret the MIC” are described in the following section.
First, we regard it important to ascertain that the species identification is correct (MALDI-TOF or sequencing) and to re-test the isolate once or twice to confirm the MIC is representative for the isolate, as the inherent variability in MIC determinations may yield varying MICs within a couple of dilution steps.
Second, we recommend comparing the MICs to existing MIC distributions for that drug and species to determine if the MIC is most likely “normal” or “elevated” (indicating possible acquired resistance). In Table 4, Table 5, Table 6 and Table 7, we summarised our data for more than 4000 isolates and documented alignment to published EUCAST data [25,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52] (for details on this data, see Supplementary Text S2). These tables can be used for comparison if the local susceptibility testing is confirmed to align with EUCAST testing.
Third, we propose a pragmatic categorisation and upper limits of the wild-type MICs for each of the rare species. Our categorisation relies on a comparison to the modal MIC and range obtained for (preferably related) common species. The underlying assumptions are, firstly, that when isolates are genetically related, pathogenicity, invasive potential, propensity for plastic adherence, and intrinsic resistance mechanisms may be expected to be similar as well. Secondly, even if species are not related phylogenetically, we pragmatically assumed that the rare yeasts are most likely “rare” due to a lower rather than higher pathogenicity and therefore will likely respond if the MIC is comparable to that against wild-type isolates of more prevalent and susceptible species. The categorisation is presented in Table 4, Table 5, Table 6 and Table 7 and summarised with pragmatic “breakpoints” (BPs) in Table 3.
5.2. Amphotericin B
For amphotericin B, all included genera except Trichosporon generally had MICs below the non-species-specific clinical susceptibility breakpoint of 1 mg/L for Candida species in agreement with the broad clinical spectrum of this agent (Table 4). All Cryptococcus neoformans isolates had MICs below 1 mg/L and the recommended first line treatment for this organism is indeed amphotericin B (+/− flucytosine) [53]. One isolate of C. lipolytica (Yarrowia lipolytica) had an MIC of 2 mg/L but grew very poorly, likely influencing the reading. Another series of 27 C. lipolytica isolates reported an MIC90 of 1 mg/L [45]. It is therefore reasonable to assume that MICs are normally ≤1 mg/L. Candida lusitaniae (Clavispora lusitaniae) does not normally have MIC values above 1 mg/L, but as a lower fungicidal activity, higher mutation rates, and clinical failure rates were seen, amphotericin B is not recommended for treatment for this species [34,54]. For Trichosporon species, higher MICs are common, and amphotericin B is not the recommended first line treatment (Table 4). Based on this, we would pragmatically regard yeast isolates with amphotericin B MIC ≤ 1 mg/L as wild-type and regard them as a suitable target for amphotericin B, with the exception of C. lusitaniae and Trichosporon species isolates (Table 3).
Table 3.
Overview of pragmatic BPs for the rare yeast species. The colour denotes the intrinsic relative susceptibility (S (green)/I (orange)/R (red)/Unknown (grey)) of wild-type isolates (isolates with modal MICs (mg/L) in the indicated range). Isolates with MICs above the indicated species-specific values (and thus non-wild-type) should be regarded resistant.
Table 3.
Overview of pragmatic BPs for the rare yeast species. The colour denotes the intrinsic relative susceptibility (S (green)/I (orange)/R (red)/Unknown (grey)) of wild-type isolates (isolates with modal MICs (mg/L) in the indicated range). Isolates with MICs above the indicated species-specific values (and thus non-wild-type) should be regarded resistant.
| Recommendation Regarding Treatment | Amphotericin B | Anidulafungin | Fluconazole | Voriconazole |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treat if wild-type | Confirmed MIC ≤ 1: Candida species Rare yeasts (except those below) | Confirmed MIC ≤ 0.06: →regard susceptible C. dubliniensis C. inconspicua C. nivariensis C. norvegensis C. pelliculosa C. utilis L. elongisporus P. kluyveri Repeat MIC ≤0.125 mg/L →regard susceptible (consider FKS sequencing if MIC > 0.06 mg/L) C. intermedia C. lusitaniae C. palmioleophila C. kefyr | Confirmed MIC ≤ 2: →regard susceptible C. intermedia C. kefyr [1] C. lusitaniae C. metapsilosis C. orthopsilosis C. utilis L. elongisporus | Confirmed MIC ≤0.03: →regard susceptible C. intermedia C. kefyr C. lusitaniae C. metapsilosis C. orthopsilosis L. elongisporus |
| Consider use if wild-type and: Not severe/ Elevated dose/ Oral consolidation/ No better options | Confirmed MIC 0.125–0.5: →consider use in some situations (for ex. less severe infections, when no better option is available) C. lipolytica C. magnoliae C. metapsilosis C. orthopsilosis C. pararugosa S. cerevisiae A. adeninivorans | Confirmed MIC 2–16: →consider use in some situations (increased dosage and less severe infections) C. fermentati C. nivariensis C. pararugosa C. pelliculosa C. guilliermondii [16] C. bovina T. dermatis (1st line Alt) Cr. Neoformans (2nd line) S. cerevisiae T. asahii (1st line Alt) | Confirmed MIC 0.06–0.125: →consider use in some situations (TDM confirmed sufficient exposure, less severe infections or when no better option is available) C. fermentati C. guilliermondii C. lipolytica C. nivariensis C. palmioleophila C. pelliculosa C. utilis S. cerevisiae Cr. neoformans [0.5] T. dermatis (1st line) | |
| Consider alternative therapy | Confirmed MIC >1: Any isolate →regard resistant C. lusitaniae [0.5] Trichosporon spp. (2nd line) | Repeat MIC 0.5–1 No evidence that allows recommendation C. fermentati C. guilliermondii Repeat MIC ≥1: →regard resistant Cryptococcus Trichosporon, Magnusiomyces, Geotrichum and Rhodutorula (Against due to intrinsic resistance) | Confirmed MIC > 16 →regard resistant C. inconspicua C. lipolytica C. magnoliae C. norvegensis C. palmioleophila P. kluyveri G. candidum R. mucilaginosa M. capitatus M. clavatus A. adeninivorans | Confirmed MIC 0.25–1: No evidence that allows recommendations C. inconspicua C. norvegensis P. kluyveri M. capitatus (1st line Alt) G. candidum (1st line Alt) Confirmed MIC testing ≥2 →Regard as resistant A. adeninivorans R. mucilaginosa (Against) |
Only species with >1 isolate are included. tECOFFs in brackets. Treatment recommendations from the 2021 Global ECMM/ISHAM/ASM Rare Yeast Guideline [14] (or 2010 IDSA guideline for meningitis/cryptococcemia [53]) are used in parenthesis where available. “1st line Alt” refers to first line alternative.
Table 4.
Amphotericin B EUCAST MICs against Danish common and rare yeast species sorted by increasing MICs. The coloured boxes indicate the intrinsic relative susceptibility (S (green)/I (orange)/R (red)) of wild-type isolates of a given species.
Table 4.
Amphotericin B EUCAST MICs against Danish common and rare yeast species sorted by increasing MICs. The coloured boxes indicate the intrinsic relative susceptibility (S (green)/I (orange)/R (red)) of wild-type isolates of a given species.
| Species | n | Amphotericin MIC (mg/L) | ECOFF/ WT susc. 1 | ECMM/ISHAM/ASM Recommendation (SoR/QoE) [14] 2 | Number; MIC50/MIC90 (Range), [Reference] 3 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ≤0.016 | 0.03 | 0.06 | 0.125 | 0.25 | 0.5 | 1 | 2 | 4 | |||||
| C. dubliniensis | 235 | 26 | 57 | 102 | 41 | 9 | 0.25/S | n = 146; 0.06/0.25 [34] | |||||
| C. albicans | 1260 | 2 | 81 | 337 | 707 | 132 | 1 | 1/S | n = 1342; 0.25 /0.5 [34] | ||||
| C. glabrata | 947 | 6 | 28 | 149 | 433 | 323 | 8 | 1/S | n = 907; 0.25/0.5 [34] | ||||
| C. tropicalis | 147 | 5 | 75 | 64 | 3 | 1/S | n = 257; 0.25/0.5 [34] | ||||||
| C. krusei | 150 | 1 | 3 | 73 | 73 | 1/S | n = 262; 0.5/1 [34] | ||||||
| C. parapsilosis | 128 | 3 | 35 | 81 | 9 | 1/S | n = 314; 0.5/0.5 [34] | ||||||
| P. kluyveri | 2 | 2 | |||||||||||
| C. intermedia | 1 | 1 | n = 13; 0.25/1 [45], n = 1, (0.03) [46] | ||||||||||
| P. manshurica | 1 | 1 | n = 1; (0.25) [47] | ||||||||||
| L. elongisporus | 2 | 2 | n = 1, 0.03 [49]; n = 2 (0.03-0.12) [46] | ||||||||||
| C. pararugosa | 2 | 1 | 1 | n = 60; 1/1 [48], n = 6; 1/1 [45] | |||||||||
| C. utilis | 3 | 1 | 2 | ||||||||||
| C. fermentati | 11 | 1 | 4 | 6 | n = 29; 0.5/2 [45] | ||||||||
| C. pelliculosa | 12 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 2 | n = 30; 0.5/1 [45] | |||||||
| R. mucilaginosa | 7 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1st line (+/− 5FC) (BIIu/BIII) | n = 1; (0.25) [49]; n = 5; (0.5–1) [50] | ||||||
| C. guilliermondii | 32 | 2 | 14 | 15 | 1 | [0.5] | n = 88; 0.125/0.25 [34], n = 30, 0.125/0.25 [51], n = 27; 1/1 [45] | ||||||
| C. lusitaniae | 61 | 6 | 24 | 26 | 4 | 1 | [0.5] | n = 59; 0.125/0.25 [34], n = 30; 0.06/0.25 [51], n = 14; 0.25/1 [45] | |||||
| C. orthopsilosis | 15 | 2 | 6 | 7 | n = 5; 0.06/NA (0.03-0.12) [25]; n = 8; (0.03-0.12) [46] | ||||||||
| Cr. neoformans SC | 17 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 9 | 3 | 1 | [1] | 1st line (+/− 5FC) (IDSA) | n = 1022; 0.25/0.5 [34], n = 106, 0.125/0.25 [52] | |||
| S. cerevisiae | 58 | 1 | 4 | 11 | 26 | 15 | 1 | [0.5] | 1st line (BIII) | n = 81; 0.25/0.5 [34] | |||
| C. palmioleophila | 1 | 1 | n = 3; (0.125-0.5) [45] | ||||||||||
| C. fabianii | 1 | 1 | n = 2, (0.06-0.25) [46] | ||||||||||
| C. inconspicua | 6 | 1 | 3 | 2 | n = 168; 0.5/1 [48]; n = 5 (0.25-0.5) [46] | ||||||||
| C. kefyr | 47 | 9 | 32 | 6 | [1] | n = 64; 0.5/1 [34], n = 17; 1/2 [45] | |||||||
| C. nivariensis | 4 | 1 | 3 | n = 4; 0.125/0.25 [45] | |||||||||
| K. ohmeri | 1 | 1 | 1st line (BIII) | n = 1, 0.03 [49], n = 1; (0.125) [50]; n = 4 (0.03-0.12) [46] | |||||||||
| C. catenulata | 1 | 1 | n = 1; (0.06) [47] | ||||||||||
| C. norvegensis | 10 | 1 | 7 | 2 | n = 18; 0.25/1 [45], n = 15; 1/2 [48] | ||||||||
| C. metapsilosis | 5 | 4 | 1 | n = 6; 0.09/NA (0.06-0.12) [25] | |||||||||
| C. lipolytica | 2 | 1 | 1 | n = 27; 0.5/1 [45] | |||||||||
| C. ciferrii | 1 | 1 | n = 8; (1-2) [48]; n = 1, 0.25 [46] | ||||||||||
| A. adeninivorans | 3 | 2 | 1 | n = 1; (2) [50] | |||||||||
| G. candidum | 4 | 2 | 2 | 1st line (+/− 5FC) (BIII) | n = 3; (0.25-1) [35] | ||||||||
| M. capitatus | 11 | 1 | 9 | 1 | 1st line (+/− 5FC) (BIIu) | n = 27; 0.25/0.5 [35], n = 3 (0.125-0.5) [49] | |||||||
| T. asahii | 1 | 1 | 2nd line (CIIu) | n = 37; 2/16 [36], n = 29 (0.25-4) [37], n = 2 (2) [49], n = 1; (>8) [50] | |||||||||
| T. dermatis | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2nd line (CIIu) | n = 1; (2) [36], n = 1 (0.13), [37], n = 1; (1) [50] | ||||||||
| T. inkin | 1 | 1 | 2nd line (CIIu) | n = 3; (0.25-1) [37], n = 2; (>8) [50] | |||||||||
1 ECOFFs (tentative ECOFFs in brackets), wild-type susceptibility classifications (common species). 2 Treatment recommendations (Strength of Recommendation (SoR) and Quality of Evidence (QoE)) from the 2021 Global ECMM/ISHAM/ASM Rare Yeast Guideline are included for comparison for all except Cr. neoformans. For Cr. neoformans, the 2010 IDSA guideline for meningitis/cryptococcemia is used [53]. 3 Available published EUCAST MIC distributions from EUCAST or other laboratories were retrieved and referenced to the right for comparison (range used when few isolates were reported). EUCAST clinical breakpoints for the common species inserted in solid line/dotted line. The MIC50 is underlined (species with >10 isolates) and the modal MIC is in bold (≥5 isolates). For isolates with ≥10 isolates, the distribution around the modal MIC/MIC50 is marked in shaded grey. S/R classification in green/red. NA: Not available. The data set includes the MIC values for candidaemia and non-bloodstream isolates as specified in the Supplementary Text S2.
5.3. Anidulafungin
For anidulafungin, as a marker for echinocandin resistance, a broader range of MIC distributions were found. Most rare Candida and Pichia species had modal MICs ≤0.06 mg/L, whereas isolates of Cryptococcus, Magnusiomyces, Geotrichum, Trichosporon and Rhodutorula all had high MICs (≥1 mg/L) and are considered intrinsically resistant in accordance with recommendations against echinocandin therapy [4,5,53]. Resistance to the echinocandins in Candida spp. is almost exclusively associated with amino acid alterations in two hotspots in the target genes FKS1 (and for C. glabrata also FKS2). Acquired resistance has been detected in various species normally considered echinocandin susceptible, such as C. albicans, C. dubliniensis, C. glabrata, C. krusei, C. tropicalis, C. kefyr (Kluyveromyces marxianus) and C. lusitaniae (Clavispora lusitaniae) [28]. C. auris isolates can also harbour FKS mutations [55]. For the rare species, we have FKS data for a few isolates with high MIC for C. dubliniensis and C. kefyr (Table 5). Fourteen species had modal MICs of 0.016–0.03 mg/L, similar to C. tropicalis, C. glabrata and C. krusei, which all have a clinical breakpoint of 0.06 mg/L (Table 5). MIC ≤0.06 mg/L separated wild-type from non-wild-type isolates of C. dubliniensis and included the wild-type populations of C. inconspicua, C. norvegensis (Pichia norvegensis), C. pelliculosa (Wickerhamomyces anomala), C. nivariensis, P. kluyveri and L. elongisporus. The modal MICs against C. intermedia, C. palmioleophila, C. kefyr and C. lusitaniae, which have been shown to respond to candin therapy unless having acquired an FKS mutation [56,57,58], were approximately one two-fold dilution higher, suggesting a tentative threshold for suspicion of resistance of >0.125 mg/L for these species [39,45]. When possible, FKS sequencing is, however, recommended for isolates for which repeated MICs are greater than or equal to 0.06 mg/L as this will enable detecting mutations around the likely ECOFF (Table 5).
A group of ten yeast species yielded intermediate modal MICs of 0.125–1 mg/L, including species in the C. parapsilosis species complex, C. guilliermondii (Meyerozyma guilliermondii) and C. fermentati (Meyerozyma caribbica), which have intrinsic alterations associated with higher inherent MIC values [28,59]. Breakthrough and persistent infections during echinocandin treatment have been observed for all three species, indicating that they are somewhat less susceptible [59,60,61,62,63]. In a French study of fungaemia caused by uncommon yeasts, C. guilliermondii fungaemia was also found to be associated with pre-exposure to caspofungin [47]. However, likely because of the lower pathogenicity, no increase in mortality or clinical failure was seen in two retrospective studies of patients with C. parapsilosis candidaemia initially treated with an echinocandin [64,65]. As a result, the 2016 IDSA Candida guideline states that in specific cases (clinically stable patients and if follow-up culture results are negative), continuing use of the echinocandin until completion of therapy is reasonable [66]. The EUCAST clinical breakpoints for C. parapsilosis have also been updated so that wild-type isolates of C. parapsilosis are now classified as susceptible [1]. For some rare yeast species, alternative treatment options are hampered by intrinsic resistance to antifungal drugs other than echinocandins, namely, azoles or amphotericin B, and this must also be considered alongside drug-related side effects and interactions with co-medications. We therefore recommend that for isolates of C. orthopsilosis, C. metapsilosis, C. pararugosa (Wickerhamiella pararugosa), C. magnolia, C. lipolytica (Yarrowia lipolytica), S. cerevisiae and Arxula adeninivorans with MIC 0.125–0.5 mg/L, anidulafungin treatment is to be considered for less severe infections or if necessitated by drug–drug interactions, side effects, or resistance to other drug classes (Table 3). For isolates of the closely related species of C. guilliermondii (Meyerozyma guilliermondii) and C. fermentati (M. caribbica), which have even higher modal MICs of 0.5–1 mg/L (similar to K. ohmeri), we found that the clinical data do not support any definitive recommendation regarding echinocandin monotherapy. Of note, C. fermentati has been associated with several breakthrough infections during echinocandin therapy suggesting alternative or combination therapy should be considered, particularly for invasive infections [59,62].
Table 5.
Anidulafungin EUCAST MICs against Danish common and rare yeast species sorted by increasing MICs. The coloured boxes indicate the intrinsic relative susceptibility (S (green)/I (orange)/R (red)/Unkown (grey)) of wild-type isolates of a given species.
Table 5.
Anidulafungin EUCAST MICs against Danish common and rare yeast species sorted by increasing MICs. The coloured boxes indicate the intrinsic relative susceptibility (S (green)/I (orange)/R (red)/Unkown (grey)) of wild-type isolates of a given species.
| Species | n | Anidulafungin MIC (mg/L) | EUCAST ECOFF/WT susc. 1 | ECMM/ISHAM/ASM recommendation (SoR/QoE) [14] 2 | Number, MIC50/MIC90 (Range), [Reference] 3 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ≤0.008 | 0.016 | 0.03 | 0.06 | 0.125 | 0.25 | 0.5 | 1 | >1 | |||||
| C. albicans | 1928 | 1626 | 255 | 44 | 2 | 1 | 0.03/S | n = 958; 0.004/0.016 [38] | |||||
| C. tropicalis | 200 | 41 | 89 | 56 | 13 | 1 | 0.06/S | n = 110; 0.016/0.03 [38] | |||||
| C. glabrata | 1351 | 52 | 352 | 591 | 327 | 11 | 7 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 0.06/S | n = 392; 0.016/0.03 [38] | |
| C. krusei | 204 | 4 | 27 | 102 | 63 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 0.06/S | n = 60; 0.016/0.06 [38] | |||
| C. parapsilosis | 164 | 5 | 43 | 77 | 39 | 4/S | n = 419; 1/2 [38] | ||||||
| C. dubliniensis | 276 | 107 | 130 | 36 | 3 4 | 1 5 | 2 5 | n = 30; (≤0.016) [51], n = 14; 0.03/0.06 [39], n = 7; (0.03) [46] | |||||
| P. kluyveri | 2 | 2 | |||||||||||
| C. inconspicua | 10 | 4 | 4 | 2 | n = 168; 0.03/0.06 [48], n = 5; 0.03 [46] | ||||||||
| C. norvegensis | 10 | 1 | 6 | 3 | n = 18; 0.016/0.06 [45], n = 15; 0.03/0.125 [48] | ||||||||
| C. pelliculosa | 14 | 4 | 10 | n = 30; 0.008/0.016 [45] | |||||||||
| C. utilis | 4 | 3 | 1 | ||||||||||
| C. nivariensis | 6 | 3 | 1 | 2 | n = 4; 0.016/0.03 [45] | ||||||||
| L. elongisporus | 2 | 2 | n = 1; 0.03 [49], n = 2, 0.03 [46] | ||||||||||
| C. intermedia | 3 | 1 | 2 | n = 13; 0.03/0.125 [45], n = 1; 0.03 [46] | |||||||||
| C. ciferrii | 1 | 1 | n = 8; (0.03->4) [48] | ||||||||||
| C. fabianii | 1 | 1 | n = 2; (0.03) [46] | ||||||||||
| C. palmioleophila | 10 | 2 | 6 | 1 | 1 | n = 3; (0.03-0.5) [45] | |||||||
| C. kefyr | 56 | 1 | 13 | 31 | 8 | 24 | 1 5 | n = 17; 0.03/0.125 [45]; n = 8; 0.06/0.125 [39] | |||||
| C. lusitaniae | 76 | 3 | 31 | 29 | 11 | 2 | n = 24; 0.125/0.5 [39], n = 30; 0.016/0.125 [51], n = 14; 0.06/0.125 [45] | ||||||
| S. cerevisiae | 63 | 1 | 6 | 25 | 25 | 5 | 1 | 1st line Alt (BIII) 6 | |||||
| C. metapsilosis | 6 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | n = 6; 0.18/NA (0.06-1) [25] | |||||||
| C. magnoliae | 2 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||
| C. pararugosa | 2 | 1 | 1 | n = 60; 0.5/>4 [48], n = 6; 0.25/0.5 [45] | |||||||||
| A. adeninivorans | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | n = 1; (0.5) [50] | ||||||||
| C. orthopsilosis | 16 | 1 | 10 | 2 | 3 | n = 27; 2/2 [40], n = 5; (0.25-0.5) [25]; n = 8; (0.12-1) [46] | |||||||
| C. lipolytica | 2 | 2 | n = 27; 0.25/0.5 [45] | ||||||||||
| C. fermentati | 24 | 4 | 10 | 7 | 3 | n = 29; 1/2 [45] | |||||||
| K. ohmeri | 1 | 1 | 1st line Alt (BIIu/BIII) 6 | n = 1; (1) [49], n = 4; (0.03-4) [46], n = 1; (1) [50] | |||||||||
| C. guilliermondii | 58 | 2 | 4 | 15 | 23 | 14 | n = 32; 1/2 [38], n = 30; 0.5/2 [51], n = 27; 1/2 [45], n = 8; 2/4 [39] | ||||||
| Cr. neoformans SC | 21 | 21 | Against (IDSA) | ||||||||||
| M. capitatus | 11 | 1 | 10 | Against (DIIu-DIII) | n = 3, (2-32) [49] | ||||||||
| M. clavatus | 2 | 2 | Against (DIIu-DIII) | ||||||||||
| G. candidum | 4 | 1 | 3 | Against | |||||||||
| T. asahii | 2 | 2 | Against | n = 2, (4-32) [49], n = 1; (>8) [50] | |||||||||
| T. dermatis | 2 | 2 | Against | n = 1; (>8) [50] | |||||||||
| T. inkin | 1 | 1 | Against | n = 2; (>8) [50] | |||||||||
| R. mucilaginosa | 8 | 8 | Against | n = 1; 32 [49], n = 5 (>8) [50] | |||||||||
1 ECOFFs (tentative ECOFFs in brackets), wild-type susceptibility classifications (common species). 2 Treatment recommendations (Strength of Recommendation (SoR) and Quality of Evidence (QoE)) from the 2021 Global ECMM/ISHAM/ASM Rare Yeast Guidelines are included for comparison for all except Cr. neoformans. For Cr. neoformans, the 2010 IDSA guideline for meningitis/cryptococcemia is used [53]. “1st line Alt” refers to first line alternative [14]. 3 Available published EUCAST MIC distributions from EUCAST or other laboratories were retrieved and referenced to the right for comparison (range used when few isolates were reported). 4 These isolates were FKS WT. Micafungin MICs were: ≤0.03 mg/L (C. dubliniensis)/0.06 mg/L (C. kefyr). 5 Isolates with demonstrated FKS mutations. 6 No SoR/QoE data for anidulafungin, only for micafungin and caspofungin; therefore, only these are recommended for S. cerevisiae (and K. ohmeri). EUCAST clinical breakpoints for the common species inserted in solid line/dotted line. The MIC50 is underlined (species with ≥10 isolates) and the modal MIC is in bold (≥5 isolates). For isolates with ≥10 isolates, the distribution around the modal MIC/MIC50 is marked in shaded grey. S/I/R classification in green/orange/red. NA: Not available. The data set includes the MIC values for candidaemia and non-bloodstream isolates as specified in the Supplementary Text S2.
5.4. Fluconazole
For fluconazole, EUCAST has the same species-specific breakpoint of 2 mg/L for the four common susceptible species, based on clinical outcome data, microbiological data, dosing and PK data. A similar non-species-specific clinical fluconazole breakpoint supported by PK/PD data has been established, and most isolates of species like C. kefyr, C. lusitaniae, C. metapsilosis, C. orthopsilosis and L. elongisporus would thus be considered susceptible (Table 6). Other species like C. fermentati (Meyerozyma caribbica), C. nivariensis (closely related to C. glabrata), and S. cerevisiae (closely related to C. glabrata), Cryptococcus neoformans, C. guilliermondii, and C. pelliculosa (Wickerhamomyces anomalus) had higher modal MICs of 2–8 with MIC ranges straddling the susceptibility breakpoint, similar to C. glabrata, which is considered susceptible given increased exposure [1]. In support of this, increased dosing is recommended in clinical practice for C. glabrata and when used for consolidation treatment of C. neoformans infections [13,53]. Finally, isolates of C. palmioleophila, C. norvegensis, C. inconspicua (Pichia cactophila), C. lipolytica, Magnusiomyces spp, Pichia kluyveri, G. candidum, R. mucilaginosa, A. adeninivorans and Trichosporon asahii had modal MICs of 16-≥32 mg/L, similar to the intrinsically resistant species C. krusei, and it would thus appear advisable to seek alternative treatment (Table 3 and Table 6). Of note, our included isolates of three Trichosporon species (T. inkin, T. dermatis (Cutaneotrichosporon dermatis) and T. asahii) displayed stepwise increasing MICs (Table 6). This was based on few isolates but aligned with the note that the MICs may vary among Trichosporon species in the recent Rare Yeast Guideline and that fluconazole is moderately recommended provided the MIC is low. In the clinical studies, fluconazole 400–800 mg has been used, which also indicates that elevated dosing may be recommendable [14].
Table 6.
Fluconazole EUCAST MICs against Danish common and rare yeast species sorted by increasing MICs. The coloured boxes indicate the intrinsic relative susceptibility (S (green)/I (orange)/R (red)) of wild-type isolates of a given species.
Table 6.
Fluconazole EUCAST MICs against Danish common and rare yeast species sorted by increasing MICs. The coloured boxes indicate the intrinsic relative susceptibility (S (green)/I (orange)/R (red)) of wild-type isolates of a given species.
| Species | n | Fluconazole MICs (mg/L) | EUCAST ECOFF/ WT susc. 1 | ECMM/ISHAM/ASM Recommendation (SoR/QoE) [14] 2 | Number, MIC50/MIC90 (Range) 3 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ≤0.125 | 0.25 | 0.5 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 8 | 16 | ≥32 | |||||
| C. albicans | 1972 | 927 | 895 | 120 | 14 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 7 | 0.5/S | n = 2175; 0.25/0.5 [41] | ||
| C. dubliniensis | 280 | 116 | 85 | 49 | 15 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 8 | [0.5]/S | n = 142; 0.25/0.5 [41] | |
| C. tropicalis | 203 | 15 | 57 | 71 | 44 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 1/S | n = 551; 0.5/2 [41] | |
| C. parapsilosis | 171 | 9 | 87 | 54 | 12 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 2/S | n = 835; 0.5/2 [41] | ||
| C. glabrata | 1385 | 1 | 3 | 38 | 377 | 671 | 117 | 27 | 151 | 16/I | n = 1289; 4/32 [41] | ||
| C. krusei | 206 | 5 | 39 | 162 | 128/R | n = 363; 32/64 [41] | |||||||
| L. elongisporus | 2 | 2 | n = 7, (≤0.125-0.5) [42]; n = 1, 0.25 [49]; n = 2; (0.12) [46] | ||||||||||
| C. kefyr | 57 | 3 | 20 | 23 | 8 | 2 | 1 | [1] | n = 170; 0.25/1 [42], n = 69; 0.25/1 [41], n = 17; 0.5/2 [45], n = 8; 0.5/16 [39] | ||||
| C. lusitaniae | 77 | 5 | 24 | 36 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 4 | n = 221, 0.25/0.5 [42], n = 30; 0.25/2 [51], n = 24; 0.25/1 [39], n = 14, 0.25/1 [45] | ||||
| C. intermedia | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | n = 13; 0.5/1 [45], n = 1; (0.25) [46] | ||||||||
| C. fabianii | 1 | 1 | n = 10; 0.5/1 [42], n = 2; (0.5-1) [46] | ||||||||||
| T. inkin | 1 | 1 | 1st line Alt (BIIu) | n = 10; 2/4 [42], n = 3; (2) [37], n = 2; (1) [50] | |||||||||
| C. metapsilosis | 6 | 3 | 3 | n = 45; 1/2 [42], n = 9; (0.5-8) [46], n = 6; 1/NA [25] | |||||||||
| C. orthopsilosis | 16 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 4 | n = 49; 0.5/8 [42], n = 5; (0.5) [25], n = 8; (0.5) [46] | |||||
| C. utilis | 4 | 1 | 2 | 1 | n = 23; 1/4 [42] | ||||||||
| C. catenulata | 1 | 1 | n = 1; (0.5) [47] | ||||||||||
| T. dermatis | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1st line Alt (BIIu) | n = 7; (1-≥64) [42], n = 1; (0.25) [36], n = 1; (2) [37], n = 1; (4) [50] | ||||||||
| C. fermentati | 24 | 4 | 11 | 4 | 2 | 3 | n = 35; 8/≥64 [42]¸n = 29; 16/32 [45] | ||||||
| C. nivariensis | 6 | 2 | 4 | n = 13; 4/4 [42], n = 4; 4/16 [45] | |||||||||
| C. pararugosa | 2 | 1 | 1 | n = 60; 16/64 [48], n = 9; (4-16) [42] n = 6, 16/>64 [45] | |||||||||
| C. pelliculosa | 14 | 6 | 7 | 1 | n = 36; 2/4 [42], n = 30; 4/8 [45] | ||||||||
| Cr. neoformans SC | 21 | 1 | 3 | 7 | 6 | 4 | 2nd line (IDSA) | n = 106; 4/16 [52], n = 1126; 4/8 [42] 4 | |||||
| C. guilliermondii | 59 | 6 | 18 | 21 | 2 | 12 | [16] | n = 115; 8/≥64 [42], n = 66; 4/128 [41], n = 30; 2/16 [51], n = 27; 8/16 [45], n = 8; 4/128 [39] | |||||
| S. cerevisiae | 64 | 4 | 20 | 24 | 10 | 6 | 1st line Alt (BIIu) | n = 61; 8/16 [42] | |||||
| K. ohmeri | 1 | 1 | 1st line Alt (BIIu-BIII) | n = 32; 4/16 [42], n = 4; (2-8) [46], n = 1; (8) [49], n = 1; (16) [50] | |||||||||
| C. bovina | 1 | 1 | n = 5; (2-8) [42] | ||||||||||
| T. asahii | 2 | 2 | 1st line Alt (BIIu) | n = 59; 4/16 [42], n = 37; 8/64 [36], n = 29; (1-64) [37], n = 2; (1-4) [49], n = 1; (16) [50] | |||||||||
| M. capitatus | 11 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | (BIIu-DIII) | n = 56; 8/16 [42], n = 28; 4/16 [35] , n = 3, (32-128) [49] | ||||||
| C. palmioleophila | 10 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 5 | n = 20; 8/32 [42], n = 3; (8-16) [45] | |||||||
| R. mucilaginosa | 8 | 8 | Against (BIIu-DIII) | n = 55; ≥64/≥64 [42], n = 5; (64) [50], n = 1; (128) [49] | |||||||||
| C. norvegensis | 11 | 5 | 6 | n = 19; 32/≥64 [42], n = 18; 32/64 [45] , n = 15; 64/>64 [48] | |||||||||
| C. inconspicua | 10 | 3 | 7 | n = 168; 32/>64 [48], n = 45; 16/32 [42], n = 5, (32->64) [46] | |||||||||
| C. lipolytica | 2 | 1 | 1 | n = 27; 16/32 [45], n = 27; 4/16 [42] | |||||||||
| M. clavatus | 2 | 1 | 1 | (BIIu-DIII) | n = 184; 16/≥64 [42], n = 18; 8/16 [35] | ||||||||
| C. magnoliae | 2 | 2 | |||||||||||
| C. ciferrii | 1 | 1 | n = 8; (16->64) [48], n = 1; (>64) [46] | ||||||||||
| A. adeninivorans | 3 | 3 | n = 1; (64) [50] | ||||||||||
| G. candidum | 4 | 4 | n = 36; 16/≥64 [42], n = 3; (2-16) [35] | ||||||||||
| P. manshurica | 1 | 1 | n = 1; (64) [47] | ||||||||||
| P. kluyveri | 2 | 2 | |||||||||||
1 ECOFFs (tentative ECOFFs in brackets), wild-type susceptibility classifications (common species). 2 Treatment recommendations (Strength of Recommendation (SoR) and Quality of Evidence (QoE)) from the 2021 Global ECMM/ISHAM/ASM Rare Yeast Guideline are included for comparison for all except Cr. neoformans. For Cr. neoformans, the 2010 IDSA guideline for meningitis/cryptococcemia is used [53]. “1st line Alt” refers to first line alternative [14]. 3 Available published EUCAST MIC distributions from EUCAST or other laboratories were retrieved and referenced to the right for comparison (range used when few isolates were reported). 4 MIC50/MIC90 were 4/8 mg/L for serogroup A and AD, which comprised 949 + 177 = 1126 (84%) of the 1334 isolates, while MIC50/MIC90 were 1/4 mg/L for the remaining 16% belonging to serogroup D in that study [42]. EUCAST clinical breakpoints for the common species inserted in solid line/dotted line. The MIC50 is underlined (species with ≥10 isolates) and the modal MIC is in bold (≥5 isolates). For isolates with ≥10 isolates, the distribution around the modal MIC/MIC50 is marked in shaded grey. S/I/R classification in green/orange/red. NA: Not available. The data set includes the MIC values for candidaemia and non-bloodstream isolates as specified in the Supplementary Text S2.
5.5. Voriconazole
For voriconazole, common susceptible species have ECOFFs of 0.03 (C. albicans and C. dubliniensis), 0.125 (C. tropicalis) mg/L and breakpoints of 0.06–0.125 mg/L, based on the >72% clinical response to treatment for these species as opposed to 55% for C. glabrata [43]. In vitro PK/PD data confirmed the breakpoint at 0.03 mg/L for C. albicans based on probability of target attainment and suggested that isolates with MICs of 0.06–0.125 mg/L can only be covered provided sufficient exposure is ensured through therapeutic drug monitoring. However, isolates with MIC ≥ 0.25 mg/L would require trough levels of at least 4 mg/L and thus close to toxic levels [67]. Infections by wild-type isolates of C. parapsilosis and C. tropicalis had similar outcome data as C. albicans, despite slightly higher ECOFFs (0.06 and 0.125 mg/L, respectively) and the limited data for C. krusei suggest voriconazole efficacy despite an ECOFF of 1 mg/L [43]. These findings suggested that the lower pathogenicity of most of non-albicans species allows efficacy despite some MIC elevation compared to that against C. albicans. Based on this, we pragmatically propose considering species with modal MICs of ≤0.03 mg/L as susceptible (repeat MIC of 0.03 mg/L), isolates from species with modal MICs of 0.06–125 mg/L as potentially susceptible (given that an adequate exposure is ensured), isolates with modal MICs 0.25–1 mg/L undefined, and isolates from species with modal MICs >1 as likely resistant (Table 3 and Table 7).
6. Interpretation of MICs Obtained by Commercial Tests
Various commercial methods of MIC determination exist, including agar-based MIC gradient strip tests such as the E-test (bioMérieux), automated systems like VITEK 2 (bioMérieux), colorimetric microbroth panels such as Sensititre Yeast One (SYO, Thermo Fisher Scientific), and Micronaut-AM microbroth panels (Merlin–Bruker). MICs determined by these methods may or may not be identical to those generated by reference methods, which should be taken into account before applying breakpoints validated against the reference method [68]. Irrespective of the method used, laboratories should perform an in-house validation of the commercial method and confirm that the commercial method MICs compare to the MICs of the reference method from which the breakpoints are to be adopted. Below we propose a two-step approach for this purpose if EUCAST breakpoints and the recommendations in this review are adopted for Candida and rare yeast:
(a) First, test the EUCAST QC strains, 10 times each, and check if the most common MIC (the mode) is on the target and the MICs are within the range (https://www.eucast.org/astoffungi/qcafsttables/). Random variation is permissible (maximum is one MIC value of 10 outside the defined range) but systematic deviation (mode systematically to one side of the target) is not. A systematic deviation shows that breakpoints will not be applicable and needs to be further investigated (concentrations, plastic material, reading of endpoints, etc.). For random variation where more than one MIC is outside the range, continue and perform another 10 tests and allow one of these 10 tests to be out of range.
(b) Second, if the QC strains results agree with the EUCAST QC target and ranges, perform a small study with 10 clinical isolates of the following four common Candida species (C. albicans, C. glabrata, C. tropicalis, and C. krusei), which will cover different MICs across echinocandins and azoles. It should be confirmed that the mode of each distribution is within ±1 dilution of the mode for each of the drug–bug combinations if compared with the current EUCAST rationale documents (https://www.eucast.org/astoffungi/rationale_documents_for_antifungals/). If they are, EUCAST ECOFFs, breakpoints, and the proposed pragmatic BPs in this review can be adopted. If not, the commercial method in use does not align with the EUCAST method, and consequently, misclassifications are likely to occur.
Table 7.
Voriconazole EUCAST MICs against Danish common and rare yeast species sorted by increasing MICs. The coloured boxes indicate the intrinsic relative susceptibility (S (green)/I (orange)/R (red)/Unkown (grey)) of wild-type isolates of a given species.
Table 7.
Voriconazole EUCAST MICs against Danish common and rare yeast species sorted by increasing MICs. The coloured boxes indicate the intrinsic relative susceptibility (S (green)/I (orange)/R (red)/Unkown (grey)) of wild-type isolates of a given species.
| Species | n | Voriconazole MIC (mg/L) | EUCAST ECOFF/WT susc. 1 | ECMM/ISHAM/ASM Recommendation (SoR/QoE) [14] 2 | Number, MIC50/MIC90 (Range) 3 | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ≤0.004 | 0.008 | 0.016 | 0.03 | 0.06 | 0.125 | 0.25 | 0.5 | 1 | 2 | 4 | >4 | |||||
| C. albicans | 865 | 597 | 237 | 15 | 7 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0.03/S | n = 13,630; 0.016/0.03 4 [43] | |||||
| C. dubliniensis | 184 | 40 | 106 | 26 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 0.03/S | n = 101; 0.016/0.03 4 [43] | |||||
| C. parapsilosis | 94 | 2 | 30 | 47 | 10 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0.06/S | n = 2571; 0.016/0.06 4 [43] | ||||||
| C. tropicalis | 95 | 8 | 34 | 40 | 6 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 0.125/S | n = 2958; 0.03/0.125 4 [43] | ||||||
| C. glabrata | 637 | 1 | 71 | 340 | 131 | 25 | 7 | 17 | 27 | 15 | 3 | 1/IE | n = 5907; 0.25/1 [43] | |||
| C. krusei | 109 | 21 | 49 | 24 | 11 | 3 | 1 | 1/IE | n = 427; 0.25/1 [43] | |||||||
| C. kefyr | 43 | 2 | 25 | 13 | 2 | 1 | n = 170; ≤0.015/≤0.015 [42], n = 34; 0.016/0.03 [43]; n = 17; 0.016/0.06 [45], n = 8; 0.016/1 [39] | |||||||||
| C. lusitaniae | 49 | 5 | 33 | 8 | 2 | 1 | n = 221; ≤0.015/≤0.015 [42], n = 91; 0.016/0.06 [43], n = 30; 0.016/0.06 [51], n = 24; 0.016/0.03 [39] | |||||||||
| L. elongisporus | 2 | 1 | 1 | n = 7; (≤0.015) [42], n = 1; (0.02) [49] | ||||||||||||
| C. intermedia | 3 | 1 | 2 6 | n = 13; 0.016/0.03 [45] | ||||||||||||
| T. inkin | 1 | 1 | 1st line (BIIu-CIII) | n = 10; ≤0.015/0.06 [42], n = 3; (0.03-0.13) [37], n = 2; (0.015-0.25) [50] | ||||||||||||
| C. metapsilosis | 5 | 2 | 3 | n = 45; 0.03/0.06 [42], n = 6; 0.03/NA (0.02-0.12) [25] | ||||||||||||
| C. catenulata | 1 | 1 | n = 1; (≤0.015) [47] | |||||||||||||
| C. orthopsilosis | 12 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | n = 49; 0.03/1 [42], n = 5; 0.03/NA (0.02-0.03) [25] | |||||||
| C. nivariensis | 4 | 2 | 2 | n = 13; 0.06-0.125 [42], n = 4, (0.016-0.125) [45] | ||||||||||||
| K. ohmeri | 1 | 1 | 2nd line (BIII) | n = 32; 0.03/0.125 [42], n = 1, (0.06) [49], n = 1; (0.06) [50] | ||||||||||||
| C. lipolytica | 2 | 1 | 1 | n = 27; 0.06/0.125 [42], n = 26;0.125/0.25 [45] | ||||||||||||
| T. dermatis | 2 | 2 | 1st line (BIIu-CIII) | n = 7; (≤0.015-0.125) [42]; n = 1; (0.06) [37], n = 1; (0.03) [36], n = 1 (0.06) [50] | ||||||||||||
| C. fermentati | 15 | 3 6 | 7 | 3 | 1 | 1 | n = 35; 0.125/2 [42], n = 29; 0.25/0.5 [45] | |||||||||
| C. pelliculosa | 6 | 1 | 4 | 1 | n = 36; 0.125/0.25 [42], n = 30; 0.06/0.125 [45] | |||||||||||
| C. guilliermondii | 50 | 5 6 | 16 | 15 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | n = 125; 0.06/0.5 [43], n = 115; 0.06/0.5 [42], n = 30; 0.06/2 [51], n = 27; 0.125/0.25 [45] | |||||
| S. cerevisiae | 48 | 9 | 28 | 8 | 2 | 1 | (BIII) | n = 61; 0.125/0.25 [42], n = 59; 0.125/0.5 [43] | ||||||||
| Cr. neoformans SC | 10 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 0.5 | n = 479; 0.125/0.25 [43], n = 106, 0.03/0.06 [52], n = 1126; 0.03/0.125 [42] 5 | ||||||||
| C. palmioleophila | 9 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 2 | n = 20; 0.125/0.25 [42], n = 3; (0.125) [45] | ||||||||||
| C. utilis | 3 | 1 | 2 | n = 23; 0.06/0.125 [42] | ||||||||||||
| C. bovina | 1 | 1 | n = 5; (0.03-0.125) [42] | |||||||||||||
| T. asahii | 1 | 1 | 1st line (BIIu-CIII) | n = 59; 0.06/0.25 [42]; n = 37; 1/32 [36], n = 29; (0.03-0.5) [37]; n = 2 (0.25) [49]; n = 1 (0.25) [50] | ||||||||||||
| C. inconspicua | 4 | 2 | 1 | 1 | n = 168; 0.25/1 [48], n = 45; 0.125/0.5 [42] | |||||||||||
| G. candidum | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1st line Alt (BIII) | n = 36; 0.25/1 [42], n = 3; (0.06-0.25) [35] | |||||||||||
| C. norvegensis | 9 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 1 | n = 19; 0.25/0.5 [42], n = 18; 0.5/0.5 [45], n = 15; 1/2 [48] | ||||||||||
| M. capitatus | 10 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 1st line (BIIu) | n = 56; 0.06/0.5 [42], n = 27; 0.125/0.5 [35], n = 3 (1-16) [49] | ||||||||
| C. ciferrii | 1 | 1 | n = 8; (0.5-2) [48] | |||||||||||||
| C. pararugosa | 1 | 1 | n = 60; 0.5/1 [48], n = 9; (≤0.015-0.25) [42], n = 6, 0.25/0.5 [45] | |||||||||||||
| P. manshurica | 1 | 1 | n = 1; (0.125) [47] | |||||||||||||
| P. kluyveri | 2 | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||||
| A. adeninivorans | 2 | 1 | 1 | n = 1; (1) [50] | ||||||||||||
| R. mucilaginosa | 5 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | Against | n = 55; 2/4 [42], n = 5 (0.5->8) [50], n = 1; (16) [49] | |||||||||
1 ECOFFs (tentative ECOFFs in brackets), wild-type susceptibility classifications (common species).2 Treatment recommendations (Strength of Recommendation (SoR) and Quality of Evidence (QoE)) from the 2021 Global ECMM/ISHAM/ASM Rare Yeast Guideline are included for comparison. “1st line Alt” refers to first line alternative. 3 Available published EUCAST MIC distributions from EUCAST or other laboratories were retrieved and referenced to the right for comparison (range used when few isolates reported). 4 Data sets on which these are based are partly truncated at 0.016 mg/L. 5 MIC50/MIC90 were 0.03/0.125 mg/L for serogroup A and AD, which comprise 949 + 177 = 1126 (84%) of the 1334 isolates, while MIC50/MIC90 were ≤0.015/0.06 mg/L for the remaining 16% belonging to serogroup D in that study [42]. 6 MIC values are partly from a data set with a lower truncation at ≤0.03 mg/L. These values were stated as 0.03 and affect the following species (n of isolates): C. intermedia (2), C. fermentati (2), C. guilliermondii (3) [44]. EUCAST clinical breakpoints for the common species inserted in solid line/dotted line. The MIC50 is underlined (species with ≥10 isolates) and the modal MIC is in bold (≥5 isolates). For isolates with ≥10 isolates, the distribution around the modal MIC/MIC50 is marked in shaded grey. S/I/R classification in green/orange/red. NA: Not available. The data set includes the MIC values for candidaemia and non-bloodstream isolates as specified in the Supplementary Text S2.
7. Conclusions
In this review we suggested recommendations for interpretation of EUCAST MICs for rare yeasts. Because both the available MIC data and the clinical outcome experience were limited, we adopted a principle of caution by comparing the MIC distributions of the rare species to the more common and thus presumably more pathogenic Candida species before classification. Moreover, we confirmed our MICs against those in the literature for given species–drug combinations. It is important to consider how to best report the suggested interpretation to the clinicians. Either the MICs and interpretation can be communicated directly to the clinician, or, alternatively, the interpretation can be reported as S (MICs that fall in the “Treat if wild-type” category), as I (MICs that fall in the “Consider use if wild-type and …” category), and R (MICs that fall in the “Consider alternative therapy” category) according to Table 3, with an appropriate comment highlighting that the categorisation is not based on established EUCAST clinical breakpoints and therefore should be taken with some caution. The wording of such a comment could be:
Formal categorising of the susceptibility of the organism is not possible. The MIC and comparison to other species suggest that the agent may be used for treatment when reported “S”; should be restricted to non-severe cases, high dose therapy, or when no better options are available when reported “I”; and should not be used for therapy when reported “R”.
It is our hope that this pragmatic approach may help in choosing an optimal therapeutic agent for invasive infections due to rare yeasts until approved breakpoints are established.
Supplementary Materials
The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/jof8020141/s1: List S1: A list of current and previous Candida and yeast names used in the manuscript. Text S2: Material and methods section detailing specimen types, antifungals, and years for the Danish isolates included in the MIC data in Table 4, Table 5, Table 6 and Table 7. References [69,70] are cited in the Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Conceptualisation, K.M.T.A., M.C.A. and S.A.-A.; Methodology, K.M.T.A., M.C.A. and S.A.-A.; Formal Analysis, K.M.T.A.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, K.M.T.A., M.C.A. and S.A.-A.; Writing—Review and Editing, K.M.T.A., M.C.A. and S.A.-A.; Supervision, M.C.A. and S.A.-A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement
The study was approved by Compliance at Statens Serum Institut journal number: 21/04705.
Informed Consent Statement
Informed consent was not necessary for this type of study.
Data Availability Statement
Data are only available for research upon reasonable request to Statens Serum Institut and within the framework of the Danish data protection legislation.
Acknowledgments
We acknowledge the laboratory staff at Statens Serum Institut for their expert work.
Conflicts of Interest
K.M.T.A.: Has, outside of this study, within the last five years, received a travel grant from Gilead and speaker fees (personal honoraria) from Gilead and Pfizer. S.A.A: Has, outside of this study, over the past five years, received speaker fee from Gilead (paid to the Institution including personal honoraria) and travel grants from Astellas and Pfizer. M.C.A.: Has, outside of this study, over the past five years, received research grants/contract work (paid to the SSI) from Amplyx, Basilea, Cidara, F2G, Gilead, Novabiotics and Scynexis and speaker honoraria (personal fee) from Astellas, Chiesi, Gilead, MSD, and SEGES. She is the current chairman of the EUCAST-AFST.
References
- Arendrup, M.C.; Friberg, N.; Mares, M.; Kahlmeter, G.; Meletiadis, J.; Guinea, J.; Arendrup, M.C.; Meletiadis, J.; Guinea, J.; Friberg, N.; et al. How to interpret MICs of antifungal compounds according to the revised clinical breakpoints v. 10.0 European committee on antimicrobial susceptibility testing (EUCAST). Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2020, 26, 1464–1472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Arendrup, M.C.; Meletiadis, J.; Mouton, J.W.; Guinea, J.; Cuenca-Estrella, M.; Lagrou, K.; Howard, S.J.; Arendrup, M.C.; Meletiadis, J.; Howard, S.J.; et al. EUCAST technical note on isavuconazole breakpoints for Aspergillus, itraconazole breakpoints for Candida and updates for the antifungal susceptibility testing method documents. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2016, 22, 571.e1–571.e4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Arendrup, M.C.; Cuenca-Estrella, M.; Lass-Flörl, C.; Hope, W.W. Breakpoints for antifungal agents: An update from EUCAST focussing on echinocandins against Candida spp. and triazoles against Aspergillus spp. Drug Resist. Updat. 2013, 16, 81–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lin, S.-Y.; Lu, P.-L.; Tan, B.H.; Chakrabarti, A.; Wu, U.-I.; Yang, J.-H.; Patel, A.K.; Li, R.Y.; Watcharananan, S.P.; Liu, Z.; et al. The epidemiology of non-Candida yeast isolated from blood: The Asia Surveillance Study. Mycoses 2019, 62, 112–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Guinea, J.; Zaragoza, Ó.; Escribano, P.; Martín-Mazuelos, E.; Pemán, J.; Sánchez-Reus, F.; Cuenca-Estrella, M. Molecular Identification and Antifungal Susceptibility of Yeast Isolates Causing Fungemia Collected in a Population-Based Study in Spain in 2010 and 2011. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2014, 58, 1529–1537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Klingspor, L.; Ullberg, M.; Rydberg, J.; Kondori, N.; Serrander, L.; Swanberg, J.; Nilsson, K.; Jendle Bengtén, C.; Johansson, M.; Granlund, M.; et al. Epidemiology of fungaemia in Sweden: A nationwide retrospective observational survey. Mycoses 2018, 000, 777–785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prigitano, A.; Cavanna, C.; Passera, M.; Gelmi, M.; Sala, E.; Ossi, C.; Grancini, A.; Calabrò, M.; Bramati, S.; Tejada, M.; et al. Evolution of fungemia in an Italian region. J. Mycol. Med. 2020, 30, 100906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Astvad, K.M.T.; Johansen, H.K.; Røder, B.L.; Rosenvinge, F.S.; Knudsen, J.D.; Lemming, L.; Schønheyder, H.C.; Hare, R.K.; Kristensen, L.; Nielsen, L.; et al. Update from a 12-Year Nationwide Fungemia Surveillance: Increasing Intrinsic and Acquired Resistance Causes Concern. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2018, 56, e01564-17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Risum, M.; Astvad, K.; Johansen, H.K.; Schønheyder, H.C.; Rosenvinge, F.; Knudsen, J.D.; Hare, R.K.; Datcu, R.; Røder, B.L.; Antsupova, V.S.; et al. Update 2016-2018 of the Nationwide Danish Fungaemia Surveillance Study: Epidemiologic Changes in a 15-Year Perspective. J. Fungi 2021, 7, 491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Siopi, M.; Tarpatzi, A.; Kalogeropoulou, E.; Damianidou, S.; Vasilakopoulou, A.; Vourli, S.; Pournaras, S.; Meletiadis, J. Epidemiological trends of fungemia in Greece with a focus on candidemia during the recent financial crisis: A 10-year survey in a tertiary care academic hospital and review of literature. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2020, 64, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hesstvedt, L.; Gaustad, P.; Andersen, C.T.; Haarr, E.; Hannula, R.; Haukland, H.H.; Hermansen, N.-O.; Larssen, K.W.; Mylvaganam, H.; Ranheim, T.E.; et al. Twenty-two years of candidaemia surveillance: Results from a Norwegian national study. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2015, 21, 938–945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Pfaller, M.A.; Diekema, D.J.; Turnidge, J.D.; Castanheira, M.; Jones, R.N. Twenty years of the SENTRY Antifungal Surveillance Program: Results for Candida species from 1997–2016. Open Forum Infect. Dis. 2019, 6, S79–S94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Arendrup, M.C.; Boekhout, T.; Akova, M.; Meis, J.F.; Cornely, O.A.; Lortholary, O.; Arikan-Akdagli, S.; Cuenca-Estrella, M.; Dannaoui, E.; van Diepeningen, A.D.; et al. ESCMID and ECMM joint clinical guidelines for the diagnosis and management of rare invasive yeast infections. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2014, 20, 76–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Chen, S.C.-A.; Perfect, J.; Colombo, A.L.; Cornely, O.A.; Groll, A.H.; Seidel, D.; Albus, K.; de Almedia, J.N.; Garcia-Effron, G.; Gilroy, N.; et al. Global guideline for the diagnosis and management of rare yeast infections: An initiative of the ECMM in cooperation with ISHAM and ASM. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2021, 3099, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brandt, M.E.; Lockhart, S.R. Recent taxonomic developments with candida and other opportunistic yeasts. Curr. Fungal Infect. Rep. 2012, 6, 170–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Hoog, G.S.; Guarro, J.; Gené, J.; Ahmed, S.; Al-Hatmi, A.M.S.; Figueras, M.J.; Vitale, R.G. Atlas of Clinical Fungi, 4th ed. 2020. Available online: https://www.clinicalfungi.org/ (accessed on 1 December 2021).
- Turnidge, J.; Paterson, D.L. Setting and Revising Antibacterial Susceptibility Breakpoints. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2007, 20, 391–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). Reference Method for Broth Dilution Antifungal Susceptibility Testing of Yeasts, 4th ed.; CLSI Standard M27; Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI): Wayne, PA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). Reference Method for Broth Dilution Antifungal Susceptibility Testing of Filamentous Fungi, 3rd ed.; CLSI Standard M38; Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI): Wayne, PA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). Performance Standards for Antifungal Susceptibility Testing og Yeasts, 2nd ed.; CLSI Supplement M60; Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI): Wayne, PA, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Pfaller, M.A.; Espinel-Ingroff, A.; Boyken, L.; Hollis, R.J.; Kroeger, J.; Messer, S.A.; Tendolkar, S.; Diekema, D.J. Comparison of the broth microdilution (BMD) method of the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing with the 24-hour CLSI BMD method for testing susceptibility of Candida species to fluconazole, posaconazole, and voriconazole by use of ep. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2011, 49, 845–850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pfaller, M.A.; Castanheira, M.; Messer, S.A.; Rhomberg, P.R.; Jones, R.N. Comparison of EUCAST and CLSI broth microdilution methods for the susceptibility testing of 10 Systemically active antifungal agents when tested against Candida spp. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2014, 79, 198–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arendrup, M.C.; Garcia-Effron, G.; Lass-Florl, C.; Lopez, A.G.; Rodriguez-Tudela, J.-L.; Cuenca-Estrella, M.; Perlin, D.S. Echinocandin Susceptibility Testing of Candida Species: Comparison of EUCAST EDef 7.1, CLSI M27-A3, Etest, Disk Diffusion, and Agar Dilution Methods with RPMI and IsoSensitest Media. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2010, 54, 426–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pfaller, M.A.; Diekema, D.J.; Andes, D.; Arendrup, M.C.; Brown, S.D.; Lockhart, S.R.; Motyl, M.; Perlin, D.S. Clinical breakpoints for the echinocandins and Candida revisited: Integration of molecular, clinical, and microbiological data to arrive at species-specific interpretive criteria. Drug Resist. Updat. 2011, 14, 164–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gomez-Lopez, A.; Alastruey-Izquierdo, A.; Rodriguez, D.; Almirante, B.; Pahissa, A.; Rodriguez-Tudela, J.L.; Cuenca-Estrella, M.; Fridkin, S.; Hajjeh, R.; Park, B.; et al. Prevalence and susceptibility profile of Candida metapsilosis and Candida orthopsilosis: Results from population-based surveillance of candidemia in Spain. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2008, 52, 1506–1509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Hagen, F.; Hare Jensen, R.; Meis, J.F.; Arendrup, M.C. Molecular epidemiology and in vitro antifungal susceptibility testing of 108 clinical Cryptococcus neoformans sensu lato and Cryptococcus gattii sensu lato isolates from Denmark. Mycoses 2016, 59, 576–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- CLSI. Epidemiological Cutoff Values for Antifungal Susceptibility Testing, 3rd ed.; CLSI supplement M59; Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute: Wayne, PA, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Morio, F.; Jensen, R.H.; Le Pape, P.; Arendrup, M.C. Molecular basis of antifungal drug resistance in yeasts. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2017, 50, 599–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Perfect, J.R.; Ghannoum, M. Emerging Issues in Antifungal Resistance. Infect. Dis. Clin. N. Am. 2020, 34, 921–943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Arendrup, M.C.; Kahlmeter, G.; Rodriguez-Tudela, J.L.; Donnelly, J.P. Breakpoints for susceptibility testing should Not divide wild-type distributions of important target species. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2009, 53, 1628–1629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. MIC Distributions and Epidemiological Cut-Off Value (ECOFF) Setting, EUCAST SOP 10.2. 2021. Available online: http://www.eucast.org (accessed on 9 December 2021).
- European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. Setting Breakpoints for New Antimicrobial Agents, EUCAST SOP 1.4. 2021. Available online: http://www.eucast.org (accessed on 9 December 2021).
- European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. Review and Revision of Antimicrobial Breakpoints, EUCAST SOP 3.3. 2020. Available online: http://www.eucast.org (accessed on 1 December 2021).
- European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. Amphotericin B: Rationale for the Clinical Breakpoints, Version 2.0. 2020. Available online: http://www.eucast.org (accessed on 9 December 2021).
- Esposto, M.C.; Prigitano, A.; Lo Cascio, G.; Ossi, C.; Grancini, A.; Cavanna, C.; Lallitto, F.; Tejada, M.; Bandettini, R.; Mularoni, A.; et al. Yeast-like filamentous fungi: Molecular identification and in vitro susceptibility study. Med. Mycol. 2019, 57, 909–913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arabatzis, M.; Abel, P.; Kanellopoulou, M.; Adamou, D.; Alexandrou-Athanasoulis, H.; Stathi, A.; Platsouka, E.; Milioni, A.; Pangalis, A.; Velegraki, A. Sequence-based identification, genotyping and EUCAST antifungal susceptibilities of Trichosporon clinical isolates from Greece. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2014, 20, 777–783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Taverna, C.G.; Córdoba, S.; Murisengo, O.A.; Vivot, W.; Davel, G.; Bosco-Borgeat, M.E. Molecular identification, genotyping, and antifungal susceptibility testing of clinically relevant Trichosporon species from Argentina. Med. Mycol. 2014, 52, 356–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. Anidulafungin: Rationale for the Clinical Breakpoints, Version 3.0. 2020. Available online: http://www.eucast.org (accessed on 9 December 2021).
- Beyer, R.; Spettel, K.; Zeller, I.; Lass-Flörl, C.; Achleitner, D.; Krause, R.; Apfalter, P.; Buzina, W.; Strauss, J.; Gregori, C.; et al. Antifungal susceptibility of yeast bloodstream isolates collected during a 10-year period in Austria. Mycoses 2019, 64, 357–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lovero, G.; Borghi, E.; Balbino, S.; Cirasola, D.; De Giglio, O.; Perdoni, F.; Caggiano, G.; Morace, G.; Montagna, M.T. Molecular identification and echinocandin susceptibility of candida parapsilosis complex bloodstream isolates in Italy, 2007–2014. PLoS One 2016, 11, e0150218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. Fluconazole: Rationale for the Clinical Breakpoints, Version 3.0. 2020. Available online: http://www.eucast.org (accessed on 9 December 2021).
- Desnos-Ollivier, M.; Lortholary, O.; Bretagne, S.; Dromer, F. Azole Susceptibility Profiles of More than 9,000 Clinical Yeast Isolates Belonging to 40 Common and Rare Species. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2021, 65, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. Voriconazole: Rationale for the Clinical Breakpoints, Version 4.0. 2020. Available online: https://www.eucast.org (accessed on 9 December 2021).
- Jensen, R.H.; Arendrup, M.C. Candida palmioleophila: Characterization of a Previously Overlooked Pathogen and Its Unique Susceptibility Profile in Comparison with Five Related Species. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2011, 49, 549–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Stavrou, A.A.; Pérez-Hansen, A.; Lackner, M.; Lass-Flörl, C.; Boekhout, T. Elevated minimum inhibitory concentrations to antifungal drugs prevail in 14 rare species of candidemia-causing Saccharomycotina yeasts. Med. Mycol. 2020, 58, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cendejas-Bueno, E.; Gomez-Lopez, A.; Mellado, E.; Rodriguez-Tudela, J.L.; Cuenca-Estrella, M. Identification of pathogenic rare yeast species in clinical samples: Comparison between phenotypical and molecular methods. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2010, 48, 1895–1899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Bretagne, S.; Renaudat, C.; Desnos-Ollivier, M.; Sitbon, K.; Lortholary, O.; Dromer, F. Predisposing factors and outcome of uncommon yeast species-related fungaemia based on an exhaustive surveillance programme (2002–14). J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2017, 72, 1784–1793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pérez-Hansen, A.; Lass-Flörl, C.; Lackner, M.; Aigner, M.; Alastruey-Izquierdo, A.; Arikan-Akdagli, S.; Bader, O.; Becker, K.; Boekhout, T.; Buzina, W.; et al. Antifungal susceptibility profiles of rare ascomycetous yeasts. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2019, 74, 2649–2656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fernández-Ruiz, M.; Guinea, J.; Puig-Asensio, M.; Zaragoza, Ó.; Almirante, B.; Cuenca-Estrella, M.; Aguado, J.M.; CANDIPOP Project; GEIH-GEMICOMED (SEIMC) and REIPI. Fungemia due to rare opportunistic yeasts: Data from a population-based surveillance in Spain. Med. Mycol. 2017, 55, 125–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Álvarez-Uría, A.; Muñoz, P.; Vena, A.; Guinea, J.; Marcos-Zambrano, L.J.; Escribano, P.; Sánchez-Carrillo, C.; Bouza, E.; Valerio, M.; Cruz, A.F.; et al. Fungaemia caused by rare yeasts: Incidence, clinical characteristics and outcome over 10 years. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2018, 73, 823–825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Díaz-García, J.; Alcalá, L.; Martín-Rabadán, P.; Mesquida, A.; Sánchez-Carrillo, C.; Reigadas, E.; Muñoz, P.; Escribano, P.; Guinea, J. Susceptibility of uncommon Candida species to systemic antifungals by the EUCAST methodology. Med. Mycol. 2020, 58, 848–851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Delma, F.Z.; Al-Hatmi, A.M.S.; Buil, J.B.; van der Lee, H.; Tehupeiory-Kooreman, M.; de Hoog, G.S.; Meletiadis, J.; Verweij, P.E. Comparison of MIC Test Strip and Sensititre YeastOne with the CLSI and EUCAST Broth Microdilution Reference Methods for In Vitro Antifungal Susceptibility Testing of Cryptococcus neoformans. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2020, 64, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perfect, J.R.; Dismukes, W.E.; Dromer, F.; Goldman, D.L.; Graybill, J.R.; Hamill, R.J.; Harrison, T.S.; Larsen, R.A.; Lortholary, O.; Nguyen, M.; et al. Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Cryptococcal Disease: 2010 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2010, 50, 291–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Atkinson, B.J.; Lewis, R.E.; Kontoyiannis, D.P. Candida lusitaniae fungemia in cancer patients: Risk factors for amphotericin B failure and outcome. Med. Mycol. 2008, 46, 541–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chowdhary, A.; Prakash, A.; Sharma, C.; Kordalewska, M.; Kumar, A.; Sarma, S.; Tarai, B.; Singh, A.; Upadhyaya, G.; Upadhyay, S.; et al. 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. 2018, 73, 891–899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fekkar, A.; Meyer, I.; Brossas, J.Y.; Dannaoui, E.; Palous, M.; Uzunov, M.; Nguyen, S.; Leblond, V.; Mazier, D.; Datry, A. Rapid emergence of echinocandin resistance during Candida kefyr fungemia treatment with caspofungin. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2013, 57, 2380–2382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Asner, S.A.; Giulieri, S.; Diezi, M.; Marchetti, O.; Sanglard, D. Acquired Multidrug Antifungal Resistance in Candida lusitaniae during Therapy. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2014, 59, 7715–7722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Desnos-Ollivier, M.; Moquet, O.; Chouaki, T.; Guérin, A.-M.M.; Dromer, F. Development of echinocandin resistance in Clavispora lusitaniae during caspofungin treatment. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2011, 49, 2304–2306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Konuma, T.; Takahashi, S.; Kiyuna, T.; Miharu, Y.; Suzuki, M.; Shibata, H.; Kato, S.; Takahashi, S.; Tojo, A. Breakthrough fungemia due to Candida fermentati with fks1p mutation under micafungin treatment in a cord blood transplant recipient. Transpl. Infect. Dis. 2017, 19, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kabbara, N.; Lacroix, C.; De Latour, R.P.; Socié, G.; Ghannoum, M.; Ribaud, P. Breakthrough C. parapsilosis and C. guilliermondii blood stream infections in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients receiving long-term caspofungin therapy. Haematologica 2008, 93, 639–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pfeiffer, C.D.; Garcia-Effron, G.; Zaas, A.K.; Perfect, J.R.; Perlin, D.S.; Alexander, B.D. Breakthrough Invasive Candidiasis in Patients on Micafungin. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2010, 48, 2373–2380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Morita, K.; Honda, A.; Koya, J.; Toyama, K.; Ikeda, M.; Misawa, Y.; Okugawa, S.; Nakamura, F.; Moriya, K.; Kurokawa, M. Three cases of Candida fermentati fungemia following hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. J. Infect. Chemother. 2018, 24, 576–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Sweih, N.; Ahmad, S.; Joseph, L.; Khan, S.; Vayalil, S.; Chandy, R.; Khan, Z. Candida fermentati as a Cause of Persistent Fungemia in a Preterm Neonate Successfully Treated by Combination Therapy with Amphotericin B and Caspofungin. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2015, 53, 1038–1041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Fernández-Ruiz, M.; Aguado, J.M.; Almirante, B.; Lora-Pablos, D.; Padilla, B.; Puig-Asensio, M.; Montejo, M.; García-Rodríguez, J.; Pemán, J.; Ruiz Pérez de Pipaón, M.; et al. Initial Use of Echinocandins Does Not Negatively Influence Outcome in Candida parapsilosis Bloodstream Infection: A Propensity Score Analysis. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2014, 58, 1413–1421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chiotos, K.; Vendetti, N.; Zaoutis, T.E.; Baddley, J.; Ostrosky-Zeichner, L.; Pappas, P.; Fisher, B.T. Comparative effectiveness of echinocandins versus fluconazole therapy for the treatment of adult candidaemia due to Candida parapsilosis: A retrospective observational cohort study of the Mycoses Study Group (MSG-12). J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2016, 71, 3536–3539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Pappas, P.G.; Kauffman, C.A.; Andes, D.R.; Clancy, C.J.; Marr, K.A.; Ostrosky-Zeichner, L.; Reboli, A.C.; Schuster, M.G.; Vazquez, J.A.; Walsh, T.J.; et al. Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Candidiasis: 2016 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2016, 62, e1–e50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Beredaki, M.-I.; Georgiou, P.-C.; Siopi, M.; Kanioura, L.; Andes, D.; Arendrup, M.C.; Mouton, J.W.; Meletiadis, J. Toward Harmonization of Voriconazole CLSI and EUCAST Breakpoints for Candida albicans Using a Validated In Vitro Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Model. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2020, 64, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). Verification of Commercial Microbial Identification and Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing Systems, 1st ed.; CLSI guideline M52; Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI): Wayne, PA, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Helleberg, M.; JØrgensen, K.M.; Hare, R.K.; Datcu, R.; Chowdhary, A.; Arendrup, M.C. Rezafungin In Vitro Activity against Contemporary Nordic Clinical Candida Isolates and Candida auris Determined by the EUCAST Reference Method. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2020, 64, e02438-19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- The European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. Overview of Antifungal ECOFFs and Clinical Breakpoints for Yeasts, Moulds and Dermatophytes Using the EUCAST E.Def 7.3, E.Def 9.3 and E.Def 11.0 Procedures. Version 2. 2020. Available online: http://www.eucast.org (accessed on 9 December 2021).
Figure 1.
MIC distributions with applied ECOFFs, clinical breakpoints, and susceptibility classifications for three common Candida species. MIC distributions, ECOFFs, and clinical breakpoints are based on the EUCAST document “Fluconazole: Rationale for the clinical breakpoints,” version 3.0, 2020. http://www.eucast.org (accessed on 9 December 2021).
Figure 1.
MIC distributions with applied ECOFFs, clinical breakpoints, and susceptibility classifications for three common Candida species. MIC distributions, ECOFFs, and clinical breakpoints are based on the EUCAST document “Fluconazole: Rationale for the clinical breakpoints,” version 3.0, 2020. http://www.eucast.org (accessed on 9 December 2021).
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Astvad, K.M.T.; Arikan-Akdagli, S.; Arendrup, M.C. A Pragmatic Approach to Susceptibility Classification of Yeasts without EUCAST Clinical Breakpoints. J. Fungi 2022, 8, 141. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof8020141
AMA Style
Astvad KMT, Arikan-Akdagli S, Arendrup MC. A Pragmatic Approach to Susceptibility Classification of Yeasts without EUCAST Clinical Breakpoints. Journal of Fungi. 2022; 8(2):141. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof8020141
Chicago/Turabian StyleAstvad, Karen Marie Thyssen, Sevtap Arikan-Akdagli, and Maiken Cavling Arendrup. 2022. "A Pragmatic Approach to Susceptibility Classification of Yeasts without EUCAST Clinical Breakpoints" Journal of Fungi 8, no. 2: 141. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof8020141
APA StyleAstvad, K. M. T., Arikan-Akdagli, S., & Arendrup, M. C. (2022). A Pragmatic Approach to Susceptibility Classification of Yeasts without EUCAST Clinical Breakpoints. Journal of Fungi, 8(2), 141. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof8020141
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
