| Literature DB >> 36120738 |
Hazrat Bilal1, Muhammad Shafiq2, Bing Hou3, Rehmat Islam4, Muhammad Nadeem Khan5, Rahat Ullah Khan6, Yuebin Zeng1.
Abstract
Antifungal resistance to Candida pathogens increases morbidity and mortality of immunosuppressive patients, an emerging crisis worldwide. Understanding the Candida prevalence and antifungal susceptibility pattern is necessary to control and treat candidiasis. We aimed to systematically analyse the susceptibility profiles of Candida species published in the last ten years (December 2011 to December 2021) from mainland China. The studies were collected from PubMed, Google Scholar, and Science Direct search engines. Out of 89 included studies, a total of 44,716 Candida isolates were collected, mainly comprising C. albicans (49.36%), C. tropicalis (21.89%), C. parapsilosis (13.92%), and C. glabrata (11.37%). The lowest susceptibility was detected for azole group; fluconazole susceptibilities against C. parapsilosis, C. albicans, C. glabrata, C. tropicalis, C. guilliermondii, C. pelliculosa, and C. auris were 93.25%, 91.6%, 79.4%, 77.95%, 76%, 50%, and 0% respectively. Amphotericin B and anidulafungin were the most susceptible drugs for all Candida species. Resistance to azole was mainly linked with mutations in ERG11, ERG3, ERG4, MRR1-2, MSH-2, and PDR-1 genes. Mutation in FKS-1 and FKS-2 in C. auris and C. glabrata causing resistance to echinocandins was stated in two studies. Gaps in the studies' characteristics were detected, such as 79.77%, 47.19 %, 26.97%, 7.86%, and 4.49% studies did not mention the mortality rates, age, gender, breakpoint reference guidelines, and fungal identification method, respectively. The current study demonstrates the overall antifungal susceptibility pattern of Candida species, gaps in surveillance studies and risk-reduction strategies that could be supportive in candidiasis therapy and for the researchers in their future studies.Entities:
Keywords: Candida; antifungal susceptibility pattern; candidiasis; china; systematic review
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36120738 PMCID: PMC9487756 DOI: 10.1080/21505594.2022.2123325
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Virulence ISSN: 2150-5594 Impact factor: 5.428
Figure 1.Studies identification and selection based on PRISMA guidelines.
Characteristics of articles include in current systematic analysis (n = 89)
| Characteristics | Frequency (%) | References |
|---|---|---|
| Species | ||
| 65 (73.03%) | ( | |
| 47 (52.81%) | ( | |
| 43 (48.31%) | ( | |
| 37 (41.57%) | (5, | |
| 16 (17.98%) | ( | |
| 6 (6.74%) | ( | |
| 3 (3.37%) | ( | |
| 3 (3.37%) | ( | |
| 2 (2.25%) | ( | |
| 1 (1.12%) | ( | |
| 1 (1.12%) | ( | |
| Patient type | ||
| Inpatients | 35 (39.32%) | ( |
| Outpatients | 3 (3.37%) | ( |
| Both | 12 (13.48%) | ( |
| NM | 39 (43.82%) | NA |
| Age group | ||
| Adult | 42 (47.19%) | (5, |
| Adult/ Pediatrics | 18 (20.22%) | ( |
| Age group NM | 29 (32.58%) | NA |
| Gender | ||
| Female | 19 (21.34%) | ( |
| Male/Female | 46 (51.68%) | (5, |
| NM | 24 (26.97%) | NA |
| Infection types | ||
| Invasive Candidiasis | 27 (30.33%) | (5, |
| Bloodstream infection | 15 (16.85%) | ( |
| Vulvovaginal candidiasis | 20 (22.47%) | ( |
| Oral candidiasis | 5 (5.61%) | ( |
| Multiple infections | 8 (8.99%) | ( |
| UTI | 1 (1.12%) | ( |
| Not Mentioned. | 13 (14.61%) | NA |
| Phenotypic identification methods | ||
| CHROMagar media | 41 (46.06%) | ( |
| MALDI-TOF MS | 29 (32.58%) | (5, |
| API 20C AUX | 21 (23.59%) | ( |
| VITEK 2 COMPACT | 17 (19.10%) | ( |
| BD BACTEC™ FX | 5 (5.61%) | ( |
| VITEK MS system | 2 (2.24%) | ( |
| Microscopy | 2 (2.25%) | ( |
| DL-96A ID/AST | 2 (2.25%) | ( |
| yeast identification kit | 1 (1.12%) | ( |
| ATB ID32C strips | 1 (1.12%) | ( |
| Brilliance | 1 (1.12%) | ( |
| NM | 4 (4.49%) | NA |
| Molecular identification methods | ||
| ITS sequencings | 32 (35.95%) | (5, |
| D1/D2 analysis | 6 (6.74%) | ( |
| Molecular beacon assay | 1 (1.12%) | ( |
| Susceptibility testing method | ||
| Broth microdilution | 35 (39.32%) | ( |
| ATB FUNGUS 3 kit | 24 (26.97%) | ( |
| Sensititre Yeast-1 kit | 16 (17.98%) | (5, |
| Agar Diffusion method | 12 (13.48%) | ( |
| ETEST method | 2 (2.25%) | ( |
| kit of Autobio | 1 (1.12%) | ( |
| Neo-Sensitabs | 1 (1.12%) | ( |
| Breakpoint reference guidelines | ||
| CLSI | 82 (92.13%) | (5, |
| EUCAST | 3 (3.37%) | ( |
| NM | 7 (7.86%) | NA |
Footnote: The sum of percentages is not equal to 100 because some studies stated more than one variable, and we counted each study separately with each variable.
NM= Not mentioned, NA= Not applicable, UTI= urinary tract infection, ITS=internal transcribed spacer, CLSI= clinical laboratory and standard institutes, EUCAST= European committee of antimicrobial sensitivity testing
The molecular typing of Candida species mentioned in the included studies
| Species/ Method | Outcomes/Detail | References |
| MLST | DSTs: | ( |
| Microsatellite markers | CAI and CP6 | ( |
| RAPD analysis | Primer: | ( |
| MLST | DSTs; | ( |
| Microsatellite markers | ctm1, ctm3, ctm24 | ( |
| MLST | STs: | ( |
| Microsatellite markers | GLM5, RPM2, GLM4, ERG3, MTI, GLM6, | ( |
| Microsatellite markers | CAI, CP6, B5, CP1, CP4, | ( |
| Microsatellite markers | 33 markers were selected; Cakr001–Cakr033 | ( |
| Microsatellite markers | sc15, sc32, sc72 | ( |
Footnote: DSTs; Diploid sequence types, ST; Sequence types, MLST; multilocus sequence type. RAPD; Randomly amplified polymorphic DNA.
Figure 2.Prevalence of Candida species, (a) the total occurrence of Candida species, the numerical on the top of the bar is the number of specific Candida species, (b) the occurrence of Candida species in different regions of China, each region is represented by specific colour as shown in the box, Multiple locations mean the that studies mentioned more than one region of China, (c) Prevalence of Candida species in association with various infection type, OC; oral candidiasis, UTI; urinary tract infection, NM; not mentioned the infection type, MI; multiple infections, involved in more than one infections, VVC; vulvovaginal candidiasis, BSI; bloodstream infection, IC; invasive candidiasis.
Figure 3.Antifungal susceptibility patterns of Candida albicans in the form of median susceptibility/wild type with 95% confidence interval.
Figure 4.Antifungal susceptibility patterns of Candida tropicalis in the form of median susceptibility/wild type with 95% confidence interval.
Figure 5.Antifungal susceptibility patterns of Candida parapsilosis in the form of median susceptibility/wild type with 95% confidence interval.
Figure 6.Antifungal susceptibility patterns of Candida glabrata in the form of median susceptibility/wild type with 95% confidence interval.
Figure 7.Antifungal susceptibility patterns of Candida krusei in the form of median susceptibility/wild type with 95% confidence interval.
Figure 8.Antifungal susceptibility patterns of C. auris, C. pelliculosa, C. guilliermondii and C. lusitaniae in the form of median susceptibility/wild type with 95% confidence interval.
Molecular mechanisms of antifungal drug resistance stated in the included studies
| Mechanism | Detail | Outcome | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Azole resistance | ( | ||
| Azole resistance | ( | ||
| Azole resistance | ( | ||
| Azole resistance | ( | ||
| Azole resistance | ( | ||
| Azole resistance | ( | ||
| Azole resistance | ( | ||
| Overexpression | Azole resistance | ( | |
| Fluconazole resistance | ( | ||
| Azole resistance | ( | ||
| Azole resistance | ( | ||
| S663F and S663P mutation in FKS2 HS1 | Echinocandins resistance | ( | |
| Overexpression | CDR1, CDR2, | Azole resistance | ( |
| Azole resistance | ( | ||
| Overexpression | Erg | Azole resistance | ( |
| Azole resistance | ( | ||
| Overexpression | Erg11 | Azole resistance | ( |
| VF125AL and I74L mutation | Azole resistance | ( | |
| S639F mutation | Echinocandins resistance | ( | |
| Azole resistance | ( | ||
| Azole resistance | ( |
*= Validated: mean all the amino acids found only in resistant strains and not in the susceptible isolates, and the authors discussed their azole resistance validity.