Current Fungal Infection Reports

, Volume 7, Issue 2, pp 89–95 | Cite as

Influence of Serum and Albumin on Echinocandin In Vitro Potency and Pharmacodynamics

  • Aasya Nasar
  • Laurajo Ryan
  • Christopher R. Frei
  • Jason M. Cota
  • Nathan P. Wiederhold
Pharmacology and Pharmacodynamics of Antifungal Agents (P Gubbins, Section Editor)


The echinocandins target fungi by inhibiting the production of (1,3)-β-d-glucan, an essential component of the fungal cell wall. These agents have less toxicity to mammalian cells, as compared to other antifungals; however, they maintain potent activity against many pathogenic fungi, including polyene- and azole-resistant isolates. Members of this class are highly protein-bound, and the addition of serum or albumin to the growth medium has profound effects on their in vitro potency and pharmacodynamics. In addition, studies have demonstrated an association between in vitro activity, in the presence of serum, and outcomes in animal models of invasive fungal infections. Serum and albumin may also be useful to help detect echinocandin-resistant Candida isolates with point mutations in the gene that encodes for glucan synthase. Thus, in vitro studies evaluating echinocandins in the presence of protein can provide valuable insight regarding their potency and pharmacodynamics.


Echinocandins Serum Albumin Protein binding Caspofungin Anidulafungin Micafungin 


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

  1. 1.
    Perlin DS. Resistance to echinocandin-class antifungal drugs. Drug Resist Updat. 2007;10:121–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Messer SA, Diekema DJ, Boyken L, et al. Activities of micafungin against 315 invasive clinical isolates of fluconazole-resistant Candida spp. J Clin Microbiol. 2006;44:324–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pfaller MA, Boyken L, Hollis RJ, et al. In vitro activities of anidulafungin against more than 2,500 clinical isolates of Candida spp., including 315 isolates resistant to fluconazole. J Clin Microbiol. 2005;43:5425–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pfaller MA, Marco F, Messer SA, Jones RN. In vitro activity of two echinocandin derivatives, LY303366 and MK-0991 (L-743,792), against clinical isolates of Aspergillus, Fusarium, Rhizopus, and other filamentous fungi. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 1998;30:251–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mora-Duarte J, Betts R, Rotstein C, et al. Comparison of caspofungin and amphotericin B for invasive candidiasis. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:2020–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kuse ER, Chetchotisakd P, da Cunha CA, et al. Micafungin versus liposomal amphotericin B for candidaemia and invasive candidosis: a phase III randomised double-blind trial. Lancet. 2007;369:1519–27.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    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
  8. 8.
    Reboli AC, Rotstein C, Pappas PG, et al. Anidulafungin versus fluconazole for invasive candidiasis. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:2472–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pfaller MA, Boyken L, Hollis RJ, et al. In vitro susceptibility of invasive isolates of Candida spp. to anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin: six years of global surveillance. J Clin Microbiol. 2008;46:150–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pfaller MA, Jones RN, Doern GV, et al. International surveillance of blood stream infections due to Candida species in the European SENTRY Program: species distribution and antifungal susceptibility including the investigational triazole and echinocandin agents. SENTRY Participant Group (Europe). Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 1999;35:19–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Arevalo MP, Carrillo-Munoz AJ, Salgado J, et al. Antifungal activity of the echinocandin anidulafungin (VER002, LY-303366) against yeast pathogens: a comparative study with M27-A microdilution method. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2003;51:163–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ernst EJ, Roling EE, Petzold CR, et al. In vitro activity of micafungin (FK-463) against Candida spp.: microdilution, time-kill, and postantifungal-effect studies. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2002;46:3846–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Andes D, Diekema DJ, Pfaller MA, et al. In vivo comparison of the pharmacodynamic targets for echinocandin drugs against Candida species. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2010;54:2497–506.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Louie A, Deziel M, Liu W, et al. Pharmacodynamics of caspofungin in a murine model of systemic candidiasis: importance of persistence of caspofungin in tissues to understanding drug activity. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2005;49:5058–68.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wiederhold NP, Kontoyiannis DP, Prince RA, Lewis RE. Attenuation of the activity of caspofungin at high concentrations against candida albicans: possible role of cell wall integrity and calcineurin pathways. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2005;49:5146–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wiederhold NP, Kontoyiannis DP, Chi J, et al. Pharmacodynamics of caspofungin in a murine model of invasive pulmonary aspergillosis: evidence of concentration-dependent activity. J Infect Dis. 2004;190:1464–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Andes D, Diekema DJ, Pfaller MA, et al. In vivo pharmacodynamic characterization of anidulafungin in a neutropenic murine candidiasis model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2008;52:539–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Andes DR, Diekema DJ, Pfaller MA, et al. In vivo pharmacodynamic target investigation for micafungin against Candida albicans and C. glabrata in a neutropenic murine candidiasis model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2008;52:3497–503.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Roling EE, Klepser ME, Wasson A, et al. Antifungal activities of fluconazole, caspofungin (MK0991), and anidulafungin (LY 303366) alone and in combination against Candida spp. and Crytococcus neoformans via time-kill methods. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2002;43:13–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ostrosky-Zeichner L, Rex JH, Pappas PG, et al. Antifungal susceptibility survey of 2,000 bloodstream Candida isolates in the United States. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2003;47:3149–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Odds FC, Motyl M, Andrade R, et al. Interlaboratory comparison of results of susceptibility testing with caspofungin against Candida and Aspergillus species. J Clin Microbiol. 2004;42:3475–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cota J, Carden M, Graybill JR, et al. In vitro pharmacodynamics of anidulafungin and caspofungin against Candida glabrata isolates, including strains with decreased caspofungin susceptibility. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2006;50:3926–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    •Wiederhold NP, Najvar LK, Bocanegra R, et al. In vivo efficacy of anidulafungin and caspofungin against Candida glabrata and association with in vitro potency in the presence of sera. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2007;51:1616–20. An early in vitro study demonstrating normalization of echinocandin potency in the presence of serum and an assocation with in vivo outcomes.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    ••Paderu P, Garcia-Effron G, Balashov S, et al. Serum differentially alters the antifungal properties of echinocandin drugs. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2007;51:2253–6. A large in vitro and in vivo study of the influence of serum on the potency of the echinocandins against various Candida species. Aspergillus isolates were also evaluated in vitro.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Odabasi Z, Paetznick V, Rex JH, Ostrosky-Zeichner L. Effects of serum on in vitro susceptibility testing of echinocandins. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2007;51:4214–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ishikawa J, Maeda T, Matsumura I, et al. Antifungal activity of micafungin in serum. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2009;53:4559–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Saribas Z, Yurdakul P, Cetin-Hazirolan G, Arikan-Akdagli S. Influence of serum on in vitro susceptibility testing of echinocandins for Candida parapsilosis and Candida guilliermondii. Mycoses. 2012;55:156–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Spreghini E, Orlando F, Tavanti A, et al. In vitro and in vivo effects of echinocandins against Candida parapsilosis sensu stricto, Candida orthopsilosis and Candida metapsilosis. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2012;67:2195–202.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Foldi R, Szilagyi J, Kardos G, et al. Effect of 50 % human serum on the killing activity of micafungin against eight Candida species using time-kill methodology. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2012;73:338–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cafini F, Sevillano D, Alou L, et al. Effect of protein binding on the activity of voriconazole alone or combined with anidulafungin against Aspergillus spp. using a time-kill methodology. Rev Esp Quimioter. 2012;25:47–55.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    • Garcia-Effron G, Park S, Perlin DS. Improved detection of Candida sp. fks hot spot mutants by using the method of the CLSI M27-A3 document with the addition of bovine serum albumin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2011;55:2245–55. In vitro study demonstrating the influece of bovine serum albumin on echinocandin potency and the potential for identifying Candida isolates with acquired resistance to this antifungal class.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Chiller T, Farrokhshad K, Brummer E, Stevens DA. Influence of human sera on the in vitro activity of the echinocandin caspofungin (MK-0991) against Aspergillus fumigatus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2000;44:3302–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    •• Smith DA, Di L, Kerns EH. The effect of plasma protein binding on in vivo efficacy: misconceptions in drug discovery. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2010;9:929–39. Excellent review of the influence of protein binding on drugs and the free drug hypothesis.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Walker LA, Gow NA, Munro CA. Fungal echinocandin resistance. Fungal genetics and biology. Fungal Genet Biol. 2010;47:117–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Castanheira M, Woosley LN, Diekema DJ, et al. Low prevalence of fks1 hot spot 1 mutations in a worldwide collection of Candida strains. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2010;54:2655–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Balashov SV, Park S, Perlin DS. Assessing resistance to the echinocandin antifungal drug caspofungin in Candida albicans by profiling mutations in FKS1. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2006;50:2058–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Douglas CM, D'Ippolito JA, Shei GJ, et al. Identification of the FKS1 gene of Candida albicans as the essential target of 1,3-beta-D-glucan synthase inhibitors. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1997;41:2471–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    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
  39. 39.
    Kahn JN, Garcia-Effron G, Hsu MJ, et al. Acquired echinocandin resistance in a Candida krusei isolate due to modification of glucan synthase. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2007;51:1876–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Cleary JD, Garcia-Effron G, Chapman SW, Perlin DS. Reduced Candida glabrata susceptibility secondary to an FKS1 mutation developed during candidemia treatment. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2008;52:2263–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Garcia-Effron G, Kontoyiannis DP, Lewis RE, Perlin DS. Caspofungin-resistant C. tropicalis breakthrough fungemia in high risk hematology patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2008;52:4181–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Garcia-Effron G, Katiyar SK, Park S, et al. A naturally occurring proline-to-alanine amino acid change in Fks1p in Candida parapsilosis, Candida orthopsilosis, and Candida metapsilosis accounts for reduced echinocandin susceptibility. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2008;52:2305–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Pfaller MA. Antifungal drug resistance: mechanisms, epidemiology, and consequences for treatment. Am J Med. 2012;125:S3–S13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Pfaller MA, Diekema DJ, Andes D, et al. 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;14:164–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Pfaller MA, Boyken L, Hollis RJ, et al. Wild-type MIC distributions and epidemiological cutoff values for the echinocandins and Candida spp. J Clin Microbiol. 2010;48:52–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Turnidge J, Kahlmeter G, Kronvall G. Statistical characterisation of bacterial wild-type MIC value distributions and the determination of epidemiological cut-off values. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2006;12:418–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    • Arendrup MC, Garcia-Effron G, Lass-Florl C, et al. 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;54:426–39. An in vitro study comparing the CLSI and EUCAST antifungal susceptibility testing methods in the presence of albumin and the ability of each to detect acquired mechanisms of resistance.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Eagle H, Musselman AD. The rate of bactericidal action of penicillin in vitro as a function of its concentration, and its paradoxically reduced activity at high concentrations against certain organisms. J Exp Med. 1948;88:99–131.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Ramage G, VandeWalle K, Bachmann SP, et al. In vitro pharmacodynamic properties of three antifungal agents against preformed Candida albicans biofilms determined by time-kill studies. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2002;46:3634–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Stevens DA, Espiritu M, Parmar R. Paradoxical effect of caspofungin: reduced activity against Candida albicans at high drug concentrations. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2004;48:3407–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Antachopoulos C, Meletiadis J, Sein T, et al. Comparative in vitro pharmacodynamics of caspofungin, micafungin, and anidulafungin against germinated and nongerminated Aspergillus conidia. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2008;52:321–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Gardiner RE, Souteropoulos P, Park S, Perlin DS. Characterization of Aspergillus fumigatus mutants with reduced susceptibility to caspofungin. Med Mycol. 2005;43 Suppl 1:S299–305.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Wiederhold NP, Kontoyiannis DP, Prince RA, Lewis RE. Eagle-like effect of caspofungin against Candida and Aspergillus spp.: association with homeostatic mechanisms of cell wall integrity (abstract M-1682). Presented at the 44th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, October 30 to November 2, 2004, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    • Shields RK, Nguyen MH, Du C, et al. Paradoxical effect of caspofungin against Candida bloodstream isolates is mediated by multiple pathways but eliminated in human serum. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2011;55:2641–7. In vitro study demonstrating that the paradoxical effect observed at high echinocandin concentrations is no longer present with the addition of physiological concentrations of serum.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Petraitis V, Petraitiene R, Groll AH, et al. Comparative antifungal activities and plasma pharmacokinetics of micafungin (FK463) against disseminated candidiasis and invasive pulmonary aspergillosis in persistently neutropenic rabbits. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2002;46:1857–69.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Clemons KV, Espiritu M, Parmar R, Stevens DA. Comparative efficacies of conventional amphotericin b, liposomal amphotericin B (AmBisome), caspofungin, micafungin, and voriconazole alone and in combination against experimental murine central nervous system aspergillosis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2005;49:4867–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aasya Nasar
    • 1
    • 2
  • Laurajo Ryan
    • 1
    • 2
  • Christopher R. Frei
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jason M. Cota
    • 3
  • Nathan P. Wiederhold
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.University of Texas at Austin College of PharmacyAustinUSA
  2. 2.Pharmacotherapy Education and Research CenterUniversity of Texas Health Science Center at San AntonioSan AntonioUSA
  3. 3.University of the Incarnate Word Feik School of PharmacySan AntonioUSA

Personalised recommendations