TABLE 1.
Antifungal susceptibility distribution of C. auris isolates to amphotericin B, triazoles, and echinocandins
| MIC (mg/L) |
|||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Antifungal tested | Range | 0.03 | 0.06 | 0.12 | 0.25 | 0.5 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 8 | 16 | 32 | 64 | >64 | MIC50 | MIC90 | GM | ECOFF method and value | % of isolates above ECOFF |
| Caspofungin | 0.125-16 | 0 | 0 | 26 | 62 | 96 | 8 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.38 | ND (0.5)a | 15 (7.5%)a |
| Micafungin | 0.12-16 | 0 | 0 | 92 | 69 | 28 | 7 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.25 | 0.5 | 0.22 | Visual eyeball method (0.5) | 10 (5%) |
| Anidulafungin | 0.03-8 | 12 | 38 | 64 | 35 | 34 | 5 | 6 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.25 | 0.5 | 0.18 | Visual eyeball method (0.5) | 16 (8%) |
| Fluconazole | 0.25-64 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 5 | 9 | 16 | 22 | 39 | 36 | 63 | 32 | 64 | 26.70 | Derivatization method (128) | 63 (31.6%) |
| Voriconazole | 0.03-8 | 35 | 8 | 14 | 51 | 44 | 29 | 14 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.25 | 1 | 0.27 | Derivatization method (1) | 18 (9.04%) |
| Itraconazole | 0.03-1 | 39 | 23 | 29 | 59 | 46 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.25 | 0.5 | 0.15 | Visual eyeball method (0.5) | 3 (1.50%) |
| Posaconazole | 0.03 to 0.5 | 48 | 41 | 53 | 50 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.125 | 0.25 | 0.10 | Derivatization method (0.125) | 7 (3.52%) |
| Amphotericin B | 0.03-8 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 20 | 32 | 88 | 45 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 1.48 | Visual eyeball method (2) | 46 (23.11%) |
a
Since ECOFF values were not available for caspofungin, 0.5 was chosen the cutoff value as this value segregated non-wild-type subset from wild-type isolates in our series.