Current Fungal Infection Reports

, Volume 7, Issue 1, pp 79–82 | Cite as

Are Echinocandins Better Than Azoles for Invasive Candidiasis?

Current Management of Fungal Infections (L Ostrosky-Zeichner, Section Editor)
First Online:

Abstract

Antifungal therapy has advanced tremendously in the past decade, with multiple new agents for systemic fungal infections that have a broad spectrum of activity and are well-tolerated. There is usually more than one acceptable therapeutic option for many diseases, and this is true in particular of candidiasis. Fluconazole has been the drug of choice for most clinical syndromes of candidiasis, due to its tolerability, effectiveness, and ease of administration. However, the echinocandin class of antifungals, comprised of caspofungin, micafungin and anidulafingin, has emerged as the preferred choice in the therapy of invasive candidiasis and candidemia. Their potent fungicidal activity and minimal toxicity have made them first-line drugs for this indication. In certain clinical settings, they may even be agents of first choice. Nevertheless, recent trends in echinocandin resistance demonstrated with Candida glabrata mandate ongoing surveillance, and continued trends may impact upon future antifungal selection.

Keywords

Echinocandins Azole Antifungal Candida Candidemia 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Disclosure

S. Revankar: consultancy to Optimer, grant from Merck; J. Sobel: none.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Lewis RE. Current concepts in antifungal pharmacology. Mayo Clin Proc. 2011;86:805–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Allou N, Allyn J, Montravers P. When and how to cover for fungal infections in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. Curr Infect Dis Rep. 2011;13:426–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Guzman JA, Tchokonte R, Sobel JD. Septic shock due to candidemia: outcomes and predictors of shock development. J Clin Med Res. 2011;3:65–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pappas PG, Kauffman CA, Andes D, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the management of candidiasis: 2009 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2009;48:503–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rex JH, Bennett JE, Sugar AM, et al. A randomized trial comparing fluconazole with amphotericin B for the treatment of candidemia in patients without neutropenia. N Engl J Med. 1994;331:1325–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pfaller MA, Messer SA, Moet GJ, et al. Candida bloodstream infections: comparison of species distribution and resistance to echinocandin and azole antifungal agents in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) and non-ICU settings in the SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program (2008–2009). Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2011;38:65–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Walsh TJ, Anaissie EJ, Denning DW, et al. Treatment of aspergillosis: clinical practice guidelines of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2008;46:327–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kullberg BJ, Sobel JD, Ruhnke M, et al. Voriconazole versus a regimen of amphotericin B followed by fluconazole for candidaemia in non-neutropenic patients: a randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2005;366:1435–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Perlin DS. Current perspectives on echinocandin class drugs. Future Microbiol. 2011;6:441–57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Holt SL, Drew RH. Echinocandins: addressing outstanding questions surrounding treatment of invasive fungal infections. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2011;68:1207–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pappas PG, Rotstein CM, Betts RF, et al. Micafungin versus caspofungin for treatment of candidemia and other forms of invasive candidiasis. Clin Infect Dis. 2007;45:883–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kale-Pradhan PB, Morgan G, Wilhelm SM, Johnson LB. Comparative efficacy of echinocandins and nonechinocandins for the treatment of Candida parapsilosis infections: a meta-analysis. Pharmacotherapy. 2010;30:1207–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    • Beyda ND, Lewis RE, Garey KW. Echinocandin resistance in Candida species: mechanisms of reduced susceptibility and therapeutic approaches. Ann Pharmacother. 2012;46:1086–96. Review of recent reports of resistance and clinical implications. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Park S, Kelly R, Kahn JN, et al. Specific substitutions in the echinocandin target Fks1p account for reduced susceptibility of rare laboratory and clinical Candida sp. isolates. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2005;49:3264–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    • Pfaller MA, Castanheira M, Lockhart SR, et al. Frequency of decreased susceptibility and resistance to echinocandins among fluconazole-resistant bloodstream isolates of Candida glabrata. J Clin Microbiol. 2012;50:1199–203. Large epidemiologic study of C. glabrata resistance trends. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cleveland AA, Farley MM, Harrison LH, et al. Changes in incidence and antifungal drug resistance in candidemia: results from population-based laboratory surveillance in Atlanta and Baltimore, 2008–2011. Clin Infect Dis. 2012;55:1352–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bassetti M, Mikulska M, Viscoli C. Bench-to-bedside review: therapeutic management of invasive candidiasis in the intensive care unit. Crit Care. 2010;14:244.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ostrosky-Zeichner L, Pappas PG, Shoham S, et al. Improvement of a clinical prediction rule for clinical trials on prophylaxis for invasive candidiasis in the intensive care unit. Mycoses. 2011;54:46–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Diekema D, Arbefeville S, Boyken L, et al. The changing epidemiology of healthcare-associated candidemia over three decades. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2012;73:45–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Horn DL, Neofytos D, Anaissie EJ, et al. Epidemiology and outcomes of candidemia in 2019 patients: data from the prospective antifungal therapy alliance registry. Clin Infect Dis. 2009;48:1695–703.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Grim SA, Berger K, Teng C, et al. Timing of susceptibility-based antifungal drug administration in patients with Candida bloodstream infection: correlation with outcomes. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2012;67:707–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Heil EL, Daniels LM, Long DM, et al. Impact of a rapid peptide nucleic acid fluorescence in situ hybridization assay on treatment of Candida infections. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2012;69:1910–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shorr AF, Wu C, Kothari S. Outcomes with micafungin in patients with candidaemia or invasive candidiasis due to Candida glabrata and Candida krusei. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2011;66:375–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Reboli AC, Rotstein C, Pappas PG, et al. Anidulafungin versus fluconazole for invasive candidiasis. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:2472–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Reboli AC, Shorr AF, Rotstein C, et al. Anidulafungin compared with fluconazole for treatment of candidemia and other forms of invasive candidiasis caused by Candida albicans: a multivariate analysis of factors associated with improved outcome. BMC Infect Dis. 2011;11:261.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kett DH, Shorr AF, Reboli AC, et al. Anidulafungin compared with fluconazole in severely ill patients with candidemia and other forms of invasive candidiasis: support for the 2009 IDSA treatment guidelines for candidiasis. Crit Care. 2011;15:R253.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    •• Andes DR, Safdar N, Baddley JW, et al. Impact of treatment strategy on outcomes in patients with candidemia and other forms of invasive candidiasis: a patient-level quantitative review of randomized trials. Clin Infect Dis. 2012;54:1110–22. Pivotal meta-analysis of candidemia trials. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hsu DI, Nguyen M, Nguyen L, et al. A multicentre study to evaluate the impact of timing of caspofungin administration on outcomes of invasive candidiasis in non-immunocompromised adult patients. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2010;65:1765–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ramage G, Mowat E, Jones B, et al. Our current understanding of fungal biofilms. Crit Rev Microbiol. 2009;35:340–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bernhardt H, Knoke M, Bernhardt J. Efficacy of anidulafungin against biofilms of different Candida species in long-term trials of continuous flow cultivation. Mycoses. 2011;54:e821–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wade RL, Chaudhari P, Campbell RS, Hays HD, Nathanson BH, Yi J, Horn D. Treatment of candidemia with echinocandins: data on hospital resource use from a real world setting. J Med Econ. 2012 Jul 3. (doi: 10.3111/13696998.2012.708690).
  32. 32.
    Neoh CF, Liew D, Slavin M, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of anidulafungin versus fluconazole for the treatment of invasive candidiasis. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2011;66:1906–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    • Wilke M. Treatment and prophylaxis of invasive candidiasis with anidulafungin, caspofungin and micafungin and its impact on use and costs: review of the literature. Eur J Med Res. 2011;16:180–6. Pharmacoeconomic analaysis of echinocandin use. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of MedicineWayne State UniversityDetroitUSA
  2. 2.Division of Infectious DiseasesHarper University HospitalDetroitUSA

Personalised recommendations