| Literature DB >> 29172033 |
Laura Bedin Denardi1, Bianca Hoch Dalla-Lana2, Francielli Pantella Kunz de Jesus3, Cecília Bittencourt Severo4, Janio Morais Santurio3, Régis Adriel Zanette5, Sydney Hartz Alves6.
Abstract
The in vitro susceptibility of 105 clinical and environmental strains of Aspergillus fumigatus and Aspergillus flavus to antifungal drugs, such as amphotericin B, azoles, and echinocandins was evaluated by the broth microdilution method proposed by the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST). Following the EUCAST-proposed breakpoints, 20% and 25% of the clinical and environmental isolates of A. fumigatus, respectively, were found to be resistant to itraconazole (Minimal Inhibitory Concentration, MIC>2.0mg/L). Voriconazole showed good activity against A. fumigatus and A. flavus strains, except for one clinical strain of A. fumigatus whose MIC was 4.0mg/L. Posaconazole (≤0.25mg/L) also showed appreciable activity against both species of Aspergillus, except for six A. fumigatus strains with relatively higher MICs (0.5mg/L). The MICs for Amphotericin B ranged from 0.06 to 1.0mg/L for A. fumigatus, but were much higher (0.5-8.0mg/L) for A. flavus. Among the echinocandins, caspofungin showed a geometric mean of 0.078 and 0.113 against the clinical and environmental strains of A. flavus, respectively, but had elevated minimal effective concentrations (MECs) for seven of the A. fumigatus strains. Anidulafungin and micafungin exhibited considerable activity against both A. fumigatus and A. flavus isolates, except for one environmental isolate of A. fumigatus that showed an MEC of 1mg/L to micafungin. Our study proposes that a detailed investigation of the antifungal susceptibility of the genus Aspergillus from different regions of Brazil is necessary for establishing a response profile against the different classes of antifungal agents used in the treatment of aspergillosis.Entities:
Keywords: Aspergillus flavus; Aspergillus fumigatus; Azoles; Echinocandins; Environmental; Susceptibility
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29172033 PMCID: PMC9425663 DOI: 10.1016/j.bjid.2017.10.005
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Braz J Infect Dis ISSN: 1413-8670 Impact factor: 3.257
In vitro susceptibility of A. fumigatus and A. flavus clinical and environmental isolates against azoles, echinocandins and amphotericin B.
| Drugs | Minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC)/minimal effective concentration (MEC) (mg/L) | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Range | GM | 50% | 90% | Range | GM | 50% | 90% | Range | GM | 50% | 90% | Range | GM | 50% | 90% | |
| ITZ | 1.00–16.00 | 2.00 | 1.00 | 16.00 | 1.00–16.00 | 1.803 | 1.00 | 4.00 | 1.00–2.00 | 1.189 | 1.00 | 2.00 | 0.50–8.00 | 1.414 | 1.00 | 2.00 |
| VCZ | 0.50–4.00 | 1.357 | 1.00 | 2.00 | 0.25–2.00 | 0.707 | 0.50 | 2.00 | 0.50–1.00 | 0.871 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.50–2.00 | 1.017 | 1.00 | 2.00 |
| PCZ | 0.06–0.50 | 0.169 | 0.125 | 0.50 | 0.03–0.50 | 0.065 | 0.06 | 0.125 | 0.125–0.25 | 0.171 | 0.125 | 0.25 | 0.03–0.25 | 0.188 | 0.125 | 0.125 |
| AMB | 0.50–1.00 | 0.847 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.06–1.00 | 0.329 | 0.25 | 0.50 | 0.50–2.00 | 0.966 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.50–8.00 | 0.917 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| MFG | 0.001–0.125 | 0.007 | 0.008 | 0.031 | 0.002–1.00 | 0.031 | 0.03 | 0.125 | 0.008–0.006 | 0.024 | 0.03 | 0.06 | 0.004–0.25 | 0.085 | 0.125 | 0.25 |
| AFG | 0.001–0.125 | 0.007 | 0.004 | 0.063 | 0.001 to −0.006 | 0.007 | 0.008 | 0.015 | 0.002–0.03 | 0.009 | 0.008 | 0.016 | 0.002–0.125 | 0.019 | 0.016 | 0.06 |
| CAS | 0.06–1.00 | 0.188 | 0.125 | 1.00 | 0.03–1.00 | 0.070 | 0.06 | 0.125 | 0.008–0.250 | 0.078 | 0.06 | 0.125 | 0.03–0.25 | 0.113 | 0.125 | 0.25 |
ITZ, itraconazole; VCZ, voriconazole; PCZ, posaconazole; AMB, amphotericin B; MFG, micafungin; AFG, anidulafungin; CAS, caspofungin; GM, geometric mean; 50%, minimal inhibitory concentration/minimal effective concentration that inhibited the growth of 50% of the isolates; 90%, minimal inhibitory concentration/minimal effective concentration that inhibited the growth of 90% of the isolates.
Fig. 1Minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) and minimal effective concentration (MEC) mean of itraconazole, voriconazole, posaconazole, amphotericin B, micafungin, anidulafungin and caspofungin for A. fumigatus and A. flavus clinical (CLI) and environmental (ENV) isolates.
Fig. 2Susceptibility profile of Aspergillus fumigatus and Aspergillus flavus clinical (CLIN) and environmental (ENV) isolates for azoles, following the EUCAST breakpoints, and amphotericin B by EUCAST, CLSI and Elefanti et al., 2014 proposed breakpoints.