Abstract
Studies demonstrated the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in the prevalence and susceptibility profiles of bacterial and fungal organisms. We analyzed 4821 invasive fungal isolates collected during 2018, 2019, and 2020 in 48 hospitals worldwide to evaluate the impact of this event in the occurrence and susceptibility rates of common fungal species. Isolates were tested using the CLSI broth microdilution method. While the percentage of total isolates that were C. glabrata (n = 710 isolates) or C. krusei (n = 112) slightly increased in 2020, the percentage for C. parapsilosis (n = 542), A. fumigatus (n = 416), and C. lusitaniae (n = 84) significantly decreased (P < .05). Fluconazole resistance in C. glabrata decreased from 5.8% in 2018–2019 to 2.0% in 2020, mainly due to fewer hospitals in the US having these isolates (5 vs. 1 hospital). Conversely, higher fluconazole-resistance rates were noted for C. parapsilosis (13.9 vs. 9.8%) and C. tropicalis (3.5 vs. 0.7%; P < .05) during 2020. Voriconazole resistance also increased for these species. Echinocandin resistance was unchanged among Candida spp. Voriconazole susceptibility rates in A. fumigatus were similar in these two periods (91.7% in 2018 and 2019 vs. 93.0% in 2020). Changes were also noticed in the organisms with smaller numbers of collected isolates. We observed variations in the occurrence of organisms submitted to a global surveillance and the susceptibility patterns for some organism-antifungal combinations. As the COVID-19 pandemic is still ongoing, the impact of this event must continue to be monitored to guide treatment of patients affected by bacterial and fungal infections.
Lay Summary
Secondary infections were documented in COVID-19 patients. We compared the prevalence of invasive fungal isolates consecutively collected in 48 worldwide hospitals and their susceptibility patterns between 2020, the year of the global COVID-19 pandemic, and the two prior years.
Keywords: COVID-19, invasive fungal infections, antifungal susceptibility, azoles, echinocandins
Background
The adverse impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the health and welfare of the general population is without question.1 Among the many consequences of this pandemic, secondary bacterial and fungal infections may impact antimicrobial resistance (AMR) through changes in antimicrobial use and healthcare-seeking behavior as well as infection prevention and control practices.2–14 The complications of secondary infections are major risk factors for adverse COVID-19 outcomes.10,11,14
Although most secondary infections in COVID-19 patients are bacterial,5,10,11,15,16 many COVID-19 patients are at risk for invasive fungal infection (IFI) as well.17–29 Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, secondary IFI were rarely reported.30 But, as the pandemic spread globally, COVID-19 patients hospitalized in intensive care units (ICU) with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and mechanical ventilation, COVID-associated pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA;17,20,21,31,32), COVID-associated mucormycosis (CAM;26,33,34), and COVID-associated invasive candidiasis (CAIC;11,18,22,24,25,29,35,36) became important factors complicating the clinical course of the disease. Altered infection prevention practices in the pandemic setting may also increase the risk of CAIC in these seriously ill individuals.18,22,35
There is a paucity of data regarding the frequency of occurrence, species distribution, and antifungal resistance profiles of the infecting pathogens. Most reports of IFI complicating COVID-19 are case reports, case series, or literature reviews and contain few details of the infecting species and their antifungal resistance profiles.11,17,18,22,25,26,31–33,35,36 Presently, no surveys describe the emerging species and resistant phenotypes of fungi causing invasive disease before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.
To address some of the shortcomings regarding investigations of IFI during the COVID-19 pandemic, we used the SENTRY Antifungal Surveillance Program database to examine isolates of yeasts and molds encountered pre-COVID-19 (2018–2019) and from the COVID-19 (2020) period. The primary objectives of this survey were first, to describe the frequency of isolated fungal species from significant infections in the pre-COVID and COVID periods, and second, to determine the phenotypic and genotypic resistance profiles for the pre-COVID and COVID fungal isolates against systemically active antifungal agents.
Methods
Fungal identification
All isolates were submitted to matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry (MALDI–TOF MS) using the MALDI Biotyper (Bruker Daltonics, Billerica, MA, USA) after a purity check. Yeasts that were not identified by these methods were identified using sequencing-based methods for the internal transcribed spacer (ITS) region, 28S ribosomal subunit, or IGS1 for Trichosporon spp.37–40 Mold isolates that did not achieve an acceptable identification by MALDI–TOF MS were sequenced for the 28S and 1 of the following genes was analyzed: β-tubulin for Aspergillus spp., translation elongation factor (TEF) for Fusarium spp., or ITS for all other species of filamentous fungi.37–40
Susceptibility testing
All isolates were tested by broth microdilution methods as described in the M2741 and M3842 documents. Interpretive criteria, which included clinical breakpoints (CBPs) and epidemiological cut-off values (ECVs) where available, were published in the M59,43 M60,44 and M61.45 Quality control (QC) was performed as recommended by in the M2741 and M3842 using C. parapsilosis ATCC 22019, C. krusei ATCC 6258, Aspergillus flavus ATCC 204304, and Aspergillus fumigatus ATCC MYA-3626.
Resistance mechanisms
Candida spp. isolates that exhibited echinocandin MIC values above the ECV and A. fumigatus isolates that displayed azole MIC values above the ECV were subjected to whole genome sequencing.46 These isolates were selected to ensure that mutations were detected even if present in the tail-end of the wild-type population. DNA regions encoding the FKS hot spots in Candida spp. and CYP regions in A. fumigatus were compared to available sequences in the literature.46,47
Statistical analysis
Differences in percentages were further investigated using the Chi-square test to determine statistical significance (P < .05).
Results
Frequency of occurrence of fungal pathogens in each age group
Of the 4821 total non-duplicate fungal isolates collected from medical centers worldwide, 3272 were from the pre-COVID survey years 2018–2019 and 1549 were from the COVID survey year 2020 (Table 1). The isolates were collected from 48 medical centers located in Europe (2305 isolates from 21 medical centers), North America (1237 isolates from 13 medical centers), the Asia-Pacific region (824 isolates from 9 medical centers), and Latin America (455 isolates from 5 medical centers). All participating centers contributed isolates in each of the three survey years. These isolates were recovered from patients with bloodstream infection (BSI; 2460 isolates), pneumonia in hospitalized patients (PIHP; 757 isolates), skin and skin structure infection (SSSI; 316 isolates), urinary tract infection (UTI; 117 isolates), intraabdominal infection (IAI; 113 isolates), and other infection sites (1058 isolates).
Table 1.
Species distribution of opportunistic fungal pathogens from pre-COVID (2018–2019) and COVID (2020).
| Number (%) of isolates/total by category | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Organism | All isolates | 2018–2019 | 2020 |
| Overall | 4821 (100.0%) | 3272/4821 (67.9%) | 1549/4821 (32.9%) |
| Candida spp. | 3857/4821(80.0%) | 2565/3272 (78.4%) | 1292/1549 (83.4%) |
| Candida albicans | 1724/3857 (44.7%) | 1145/2565 (44.6%) | 579/1292 (44.8%) |
| Candida glabrata | 710/3857 (18.4%) | 462/2565 (18.0%) | 248/1292 (19.2%) |
| Candida parapsilosis | 542/3857 (14.1%) | 377/2565 (14.7%) | 165/1292 (12.8%) |
| Candida tropicalis | 419/3857 (10.9%) | 277/2565 (10.8%) | 142/1292 (11.0%) |
| Candida dubliniensis | 107/3857 (2.8%) | 68/2565 (2.7%) | 39/1292 (3.0%) |
| Candida krusei | 112/3857 (2.9%) | 66/2565 (2.6%) | 46/1292 (3.6%) |
| Candida lusitaniae | 84/3857 (2.2%) | 66/2565 (2.6%) | 18/1292 (1.4%) |
| Candida orthopsilosis | 43/3857 (1.1%) | 27/2565 (1.1%) | 16/1292 (1.2%) |
| Candida guilliermondii | 30/3857 (0.8%) | 18/2565 (0.7%) | 12/1292 (0.9%) |
| Candida kefyr | 28/3857 (0.7%) | 18/2565 (0.7%) | 10/1292 (0.8%) |
| Candida metapsilosis | 14/3857 (3.6%) | 13/2565 (0.5%) | 1/1292 (<0.1%) |
| Candida pelliculosa | 9/3857 (0.2%) | 6/2565 (0.2%) | 3/1292 (0.2%) |
| Candida fabianii | 6/3857 (0.2%) | 4/2565 (0.2%) | 2/1292 (0.2%) |
| Candida inconspicua | 6/3857 (0.2%) | 3/2565 (0.1%) | 3/1292 (0.2%) |
| Candida fermentati | 5/3857 (0.1%) | 4/2565 (0.2%) | 1/1292 (<0.1%) |
| Candida nivariensis | 3/3857 (<0.1%) | 3/2565 (0.1%) | |
| Candida utilis | 3/3857 (<0.1%) | 1/2565 (<0.1%) | 2/1292 (0.2%) |
| Candida bracarensis | 2/3857 (<0.1%) | 2/1292 (0.2%) | |
| Candida haemulonii | 2/3857 (<0.1%) | 2/2565 (<0.1%) | |
| Candida rugosa | 2/3857 (<0.1%) | 2/1292 (0.2%) | |
| Candida sphaerica | 1/3857 (<0.1%) | 1/2565 (<0.1%) | |
| Candida duobushaemulonii | 1/3857 (<0.1%) | 1/2565 (<0.1%) | |
| Candida pseudohaemulonii | 1/3,857 (<0.1%) | 1/2,565 (<0.1%) | |
| Candida quercitrusa | 1/3,857 (<0.1%) | 1/2,565 (<0.1%) | |
| Candida spencermartinsiae | 1/3,857 (<0.1%) | 1/1,292 (<0.1%) | |
| Other yeasts | |||
| Cryptococcus neoformans var. grubii | 63/4,821 (1.3%) | 51/3,272 (2.0%) | 12/1,549 (1.2%) |
| Cryptococcus neoformans var. neoformans | 8/4,821 (0.2%) | 6/3,272 (0.2%) | 3/1,549 (0.1%) |
| Cryptococcus gattii SCb | 5/4,821 (0.1%) | 4/3,272 (0.1%) | 1/1,549 (<0.1%) |
| Cryptococcus laurentii | 1/4,821 (<0.1%) | 1/3,272 (<0.1%) | |
| Saccharomyces cerevisiae | 20/4,821 (0.4%) | 17/3,272 (0.5%) | 3/1,549 (0.2%) |
| Trichosporon asahii | 22/4,821 (0.5%) | 15/3,272 (0.5%) | 7/1,549 (0.5%) |
| Trichosporon louberi | 1/4,821 (<0.1%) | 1/3,272 (<0.1%) | |
| Trichosporon montevideense | 1/4,821 (<0.1%) | 1/3,272 (<0.1%) | |
| Trichosporon mycotoxinivorans | 2/4,821 (<0.1%) | 1/3,272 (<0.1%) | 1/1,549 (<0.1%) |
| Trichosporon ovoides | 1/4,821 (<0.1%) | 1/3,272 (0.1%) | |
| Saprochaete clavata | 12/4,821 (0.2%) | 8/3,272 (0.2%) | 4/1,549 (0.3%) |
| Geotrichum silvicola | 1/4,821 (<0.1%) | 1/3,272 (<0.1%) | |
| Yarrowia lipolytica | 3/4,821 (<0.1%) | 3/3,272 (<0.1%) | |
| Rhodotorula mucilaginosa | 11/4,821 (0.2%) | 5/3,272 (0.2%) | 6/1,549 (0.4%) |
| Pichia norvegensis | 4/4,821 (<0.1%) | 4/3,272 (0.1%) | |
| Pichia sp. NOSa | 1/4,821 (<0.1%) | 1/3,272 (<0.1%) | |
| Debaromyces fabryi | 1/4,821 (<0.1%) | 1/3,272 (<0.1%) | |
| Loderomyces elongisporus | 1/4,821 (<0.1%) | 1/3,272 (<0.1%) | |
| Saprochaete capitatum | 2/4,821 (<0.1%) | 1/3,272 (<0.1%) | 1/1,549 (<0.1%) |
| Kodamaea ohmeri | 1/4821 (<0.1%) | 1/1,549 (<0.1%) | |
| Aspergillus spp. | 645/4,821 (13.4%) | 474/3,272 (14.5%) | 171/1,549 (11.0%) |
| Aspergillus fumigatus | 416/645 (64.5%) | 302/474 (63.7%) | 114/171 (66.7%) |
| Aspergillus section Nigri | 81/645 (12.6%) | 61/474 (12.9%) | 20/171 (11.7%) |
| Aspergillus section Flavi | 81/645 (12.6%) | 61/474 (12.9%) | 20/171 (11.7%) |
| Aspergillus section Terrei | 30/645 (4.7%) | 19/474 (4.0%) | 11/171 (6.4%) |
| Aspergillus section Nidulantes | 22/645 (3.4) | 17/474 (3.6%) | 5/171 (2.9%) |
| Aspergillus section Usti | 7/645 (1.1%) | 7/474 (1.5%) | |
| Aspergillus lentulus | 2/645 (0.3%) | 2/474 (0.4%) | |
| Aspergillus section Versicolores | 3/645 (0.5%) | 2/474 (0.4%) | 1/171 (0.6%) |
| Aspergillus sclerotiorum | 1/645 (0.2%) | 1/474 (0.2%) | |
| Aspergillus sydowii | 1/645 (0.2%) | 1/474 (0.2%) | |
| Aspergillus sp. NOSa | 1/645 (0.2%) | 1/474 (0.2%) | |
| Mucorales group | 38/4,821 (0.8%) | 28/3,272 (0.9%) | 10/1,549 (0.6%) |
| Lichtheimia corymbifera | 6/38 (15.8%) | 5/28 (17.9%) | 1/10 (10.0%) |
| Lichtheimia ramosa | 1/38 (2.6%) | 1/28 (3.6%) | |
| Mucor circinelloides/M. ramosissimus | 4/38 (10.5%) | 2/28 (7.1%) | 2/10 (20.0%) |
| Rhizomucor pusillus | 3/38 (7.8%) | 3/28 (10.7%) | |
| Rhizopus microsporus group | 10/38 (26.3%) | 9/28 (32.1%) | 1/10 (10.0%) |
| Rhizopus arrhizus (syn. R. oryzae) | 5/38 (13.2%) | 3/28 (10.7%) | 2/10 18 (20.0%) |
| Lichtheimia sp. NOSa | 2/38 (5.3%) | 2/28 (7.1%) | 1/10 (10.0%) |
| Mucor sp. NOSa | 2/38 (5.3%) | 2/28 (7.1%) | |
| M. indicus | 1/38 (2.6%) | 1/10 (10.0%) | |
| Rhizopus sp. NOSa | 1/38 (2.6%) | 1/28 (3.6%) | |
| Syncephalastrum sp. NOSa | 1/38 (2.6%) | 1/28 (3.6%) | |
| Cunninghamella sp. NOS | 2/38 (5.3%) | 2/10 (20.0%) | |
| Fusarium spp. | 25/4,821 (0.5%) | 15/3,272 (0.5%) | 10/1,549 (0.6%) |
| Fusarium incarnatum-equisete SCb | 1/25 (4.0%) | 1/10 (10.0%) | |
| Fusarium oxysporum SCb | 4/25 (16.0%) | 4/15 (26.7%) | |
| Fusarium solani SCb | 12/25 (48.0%) | 7/15 (46.7%) | 5/10 (50.0%) |
| Gibberella fujikuroi SCb | 8/25 (32.0%) | 4/15 (26.7%) | 4/10 (36.4%) |
| Scedosporium spp. | 35/4,821 (0.7%) | 26/3,272 (0.8%) | 9/1,549 (0.6%) |
| Scedosporium apiospermum/boydii | 28/35 (80.0%) | 22/26 (84.6%) | 6/9 (66.7%) |
| Scedosporium aurantiacum | 6/35 (17.1%) | 3/26 (11.5%) | 3/9 (33.3%) |
| Scedosporium sp. NOSa | 1/35 (2.9%) | 1/26 (3.8%) | |
| Other molds | 59/4,821 (1.2%) | 39/3,272 (1.2%) | 20/1,549 (1.3%) |
| Alternaria alternata | 2/59 (3.4%) | 2/39 (5.1%) | |
| Aureobasidium pullulans | 1/59 (1.7%) | 1/39 (2.6%) | |
| Exophiala dermatitidis | 4/59 (6.8%) | 3/39 (7.7%) | 1/20 (5.0%) |
| Lomentospora prolificans | 8/59 (13.6%) | 5/39 (12.8%) | 3/20 (15.0%) |
| Medicopsis romeroi | 1/59 (1.7%) | 1/39 (2.6%) | |
| Microascus cirrosus | 2/59 (3.4%) | 2/39 (5.1%) | |
| Paecilomyces variotii | 7/59 (11.9%) | 1/39 (2.6%) | 6/20 (30.0%) |
| Purpureocillium lilacinum | 6/59 (10.2%) | 4/39 (10.3%) | 2/20 (10.0%) |
| Pleurostoma richardsiae | 1/59 (1.7%) | 1/39 (2.6%) | |
| Rasamsonia argillacea SCb | 9/59 (15.3%) | 5/39 (12.8%) | 4/20 (20.0%) |
| Scopulariopsis brevicaulis/S. brumptii | 6/59 (10.2%) | 4/39 (10.3%) | 2/20 (15.4%) |
| Bipolaris sp. NOSa | 1/59 (1.7%) | 1/39 (2.6%) | |
| Curvularia sp. NOSa | 5/59 (8.5%) | 5/39 (12.8%) | |
| Coprinellus sp. NOS | 1/59 (1.7%) | 1/20 (5.0%) | |
| Paecilomyces sp. NOSa | 2/59 (3.4%) | 1/39 (2.6%) | 1/20 (5.0%) |
| Phialemoniopsis sp. NOSa | 1/59 (1.7%) | 1/39 (2.6%) | |
| Phaeoacremonium sp. NOS | 1/59 (1.7%) | 1/39 (2.6%) | |
| Verruconis gallopava | 1/59 (1.7%) | 1/39 (2.6%) | |
NOS, not otherwise speciated.
SC, species complex.
Most isolates (80.0%) were Candida spp. (78.4%, pre-COVID; 83.4%, COVID), 1.7% were Cryptococcus spp. (2.4%, pre-COVID; 1.4%, COVID), 1.8% were other non-Candida yeasts (1.3%, pre-COVID; 0.5%, COVID), 13.4% were Aspergillus spp. (14.5%, pre-COVID; 11.0%, COVID), 0.8% were species within the Mucorales (0.9%, pre-COVID; 0.6%, COVID), 0.5% were Fusarium spp. (0.5%, pre-COVID; 0.6%, COVID), 0.7% were Scedosporium spp. (0.8%, pre-COVID; 0.6%, COVID), and 1.2% were other molds (1.2%, pre-COVID; 1.3%, COVID) (Table 1).
The rank order of the four most common species of Candida (C. albicans > C. glabrata > C. parapsilosis > C. tropicalis) was the same in both sets of isolates. Among the remaining 23 species of Candida, 14 species were common to both groups. C. tropicalis, C. dubliniensis, and C. krusei were more frequently isolated from the COVID set (11.0%, 3.0%, 3.6%, COVID; 10.8%, 2.7%, 2.6%, pre-COVID, respectively) whereas C. parapsilosis and C. lusitaniae were more frequent in the pre-COVID set (14.7%, 2.6%, pre-COVID set; 12.8% [P value = 0.172], 1.4% [P value = 0.028], COVID set, respectively). The frequencies of the remaining species of Candida were generally less than 1.0% and were comparable across both pre-COVID and COVID sets.
Aspergillus fumigatus was the most common species of Aspergillus in both sets (63.7%, pre-COVID; 66.7%, COVID, respectively). Of the remaining 10 Aspergillus species or species complexes, Aspergillus section Flavi and section Nigri were more frequently recovered from patients of the pre-COVID set (12.9%, pre-COVID; 11.7%, COVID [P value = 0.823]) while Aspergillus section Terrei was more frequently isolated from the COVID set (6.4%, COVID; 4.0%, pre-COVID [P value = 0.301]). The remaining species were similar in frequency in both groups (Table 1).
Differences in susceptibilities among isolates from pre-COVID and COVID periods to licensed antifungal agents
The isolates of yeasts and molds with at least 10 isolates collected in the pre-COVID and COVID surveillance years were tested and results are presented in Table 2. MIC results for fungal species, species complexes, or groups with <10 isolates are shown in Supplementary Tables 1 to 4.
Table 2.
Activity of nine systemically active antifungal agents against fungal isolates from pre-COVID (2018–2019) and COVID (2020).
| 2018–2019 | 2020 | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organism/antifungal agent | MIC (mg/l; number of isolates) | CLSIa,b | ECVa,b,c | MIC (mg/l; number of isolates) | CLSIa,b | ECVa,b,c | ||||||
| 50% | 90% | % S | % R | % WT | % NWT | 50% | 90% | % S | % R | % WT | % NWT | |
| C. albicans | (1,145) | (579) | ||||||||||
| Anidulafungin | 0.008 | 0.03 | 99.9 | 0.1 | 99.9 | 0.1 | 0.03 | 0.06 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 99.8 | 0.2 |
| Caspofungin | 0.015 | 0.03 | 99.9 | 0.1 | 0.015 | 0.03 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| Micafungin | 0.015 | 0.03 | 99.9 | 0.1 | 99.8 | 0.2 | 0.015 | 0.015 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 99.5 | 0.5 |
| Fluconazole | 0.12 | 0.25 | 99.7 | 0.1 | 97.8 | 2.2 | 0.12 | 0.25 | 99.5 | 0.3 | 99.0 | 1.0 |
| Itraconazole | 0.06 | 0.12 | 0.03 | 0.06 | ||||||||
| Isavuconazole | 0.004 | 0.008 | 0.004 | 0.008 | ||||||||
| Posaconazole | 0.03 | 0.06 | 98.1 | 1.9 | 0.03 | 0.06 | 98.8 | 1.2 | ||||
| Voriconazole | 0.004 | 0.015 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 99.1 | 0.9 | 0.004 | 0.008 | 99.8 | 0.2 | 98.8 | 1.2 |
| Amphotericin B | 0.5 | 1 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| C. glabrata | (462) | (248) | ||||||||||
| Anidulafungin | 0.06 | 0.12 | 96.8 | 1.7 | 98.3 | 1.7 | 0.12 | 0.12 | 97.2 | 1.6 | 98.4 | 1.6 |
| Caspofungin | 0.015 | 0.03 | 97.4 | 1.7 | 0.03 | 0.06 | 98.4 | 0.8 | ||||
| Micafungin | 0.015 | 0.03 | 98.3 | 1.7 | 96.5 | 3.5 | 0.015 | 0.03 | 98.0 | 2.0 | 96.4 | 3.6 |
| Fluconazole | 4 | 16 | 94.2 | 5.8 | 89.6 | 10.4 | 4 | 8 | 98.0 | 2.0 | 94.8 | 5.2 |
| Itraconazole | 0.5 | 1 | 99.8 | 0.2 | 0.5 | 1 | 99.6 | 0.4 | ||||
| Isavuconazole | 0.06 | 0.25 | 0.06 | 0.25 | ||||||||
| Posaconazole | 0.25 | 1 | 95.9 | 4.1 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 98.4 | 1.6 | ||||
| Voriconazole | 0.06 | 0.25 | 90.7 | 9.3 | 0.12 | 0.25 | 95.2 | 4.8 | ||||
| Amphotericin B | 1 | 1 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 1 | 1 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| C. parapsilosis | (377) | (165) | ||||||||||
| Anidulafungin | 2 | 2 | 94.4 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 2 | 2 | 93.9 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 |
| Caspofungin | 0.25 | 0.5 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.25 | 0.5 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 |
| Micafungin | 1 | 1 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 1 | 1 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 |
| Fluconazole | 0.5 | 4 | 88.3 | 9.8 | 88.3 | 11.7 | 0.5 | 16 | 86.1 | 13.9 | 86.1 | 13.9 |
| Itraconazole | 0.06 | 0.25 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.12 | 0.25 | 98.2 | 1.8 | ||||
| Isavuconazole | 0.008 | 0.03 | 0.004 | 0.03 | ||||||||
| Posaconazole | 0.06 | 0.12 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.06 | 0.12 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| Voriconazole | 0.008 | 0.06 | 90.7 | 0.8 | 87.0 | 13.0 | 0.008 | 0.25 | 89.7 | 4.2 | 86.1 | 13.9 |
| Amphotericin B | 0.5 | 1 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 1 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| C. tropicalis | (277) | (142) | ||||||||||
| Anidulafungin | 0.015 | 0.06 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 99.6 | 0.4 | 0.03 | 0.06 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 |
| Caspofungin | 0.03 | 0.06 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.015 | 0.03 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| Micafungin | 0.03 | 0.06 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 98.2 | 1.8 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 |
| Fluconazole | 0.25 | 0.5 | 98.9 | 0.7 | 96.8 | 3.2 | 0.5 | 1 | 94.4 | 3.5 | 93.0 | 7.0 |
| Itraconazole | 0.12 | 0.25 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.06 | 0.25 | 97.2 | 2.8 | ||||
| Isavuconazole | 0.015 | 0.06 | 0.015 | 0.06 | ||||||||
| Posaconazole | 0.06 | 0.12 | 96.0 | 4.0 | 0.06 | 0.12 | 94.4 | 5.6 | ||||
| Voriconazole | 0.015 | 0.03 | 99.3 | 0.0 | 99.3 | 0.7 | 0.03 | 0.06 | 94.4 | 2.1 | 94.4 | 5.6 |
| Amphotericin B | 0.5 | 1 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 1 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| C. krusei | (66) | (46) | ||||||||||
| Anidulafungin | 0.03 | 0.06 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 |
| Caspofungin | 0.06 | 0.12 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.06 | 0.25 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| Micafungin | 0.06 | 0.12 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.12 | 0.12 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 |
| Fluconazole | 32 | 32 | 32 | 64 | ||||||||
| Itraconazole | 0.25 | 0.5 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| Isavuconazole | 0.25 | 0.5 | 0.12 | 0.25 | ||||||||
| Posaconazole | 0.25 | 0.5 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.25 | 0.5 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| Voriconazole | 0.25 | 0.25 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 97.8 | 0.0 | 97.8 | 2.2 |
| Amphotericin B | 1 | 2 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 1 | 1 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| C. lusitaniae | (66) | (18) | ||||||||||
| Anidulafungin | 0.25 | 0.5 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 1 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| Caspofungin | 0.25 | 0.25 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.12 | 0.25 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| Micafungin | 0.12 | 0.25 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.12 | 0.25 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| Fluconazole | 0.25 | 1 | 92.4 | 7.5 | 0.5 | 1 | 94.4 | 5.6 | ||||
| Itraconazole | 0.12 | 0.25 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| Isavuconazole | 0.008 | 0.015 | 0.008 | 0.03 | ||||||||
| Posaconazole | 0.06 | 0.06 | 90.9 | 9.1 | 0.06 | 0.12 | 88.9 | 11.1 | ||||
| Voriconazole | 0.008 | 0.015 | 0.008 | 0.015 | ||||||||
| Amphotericin B | 0.5 | 1 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| C. dubliniensis | (68) | (39) | ||||||||||
| Anidulafungin | 0.03 | 0.12 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.06 | 0.12 | 97.4 | 2.6 | ||||
| Caspofungin | 0.03 | 0.06 | 0.015 | 0.06 | ||||||||
| Micafungin | 0.015 | 0.03 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.015 | 0.03 | 97.4 | 2.6 | ||||
| Fluconazole | 0.12 | 0.25 | 97.1 | 2.9 | 0.12 | 0.25 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| Itraconazole | 0.06 | 0.12 | 97.1 | 2.9 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| Isavuconazole | ≤0.002 | 0.008 | ≤0.002 | 0.004 | ||||||||
| Posaconazole | 0.03 | 0.06 | 97.1 | 2.9 | 0.03 | 0.06 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| Voriconazole | 0.008 | 0.015 | 0.008 | 0.008 | ||||||||
| Amphotericin B | 0.25 | 0.5 | 98.5 | 1.5 | 0.25 | 0.5 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| C. orthopsilosis | (27) | (16) | ||||||||||
| Anidulafungin | 0.5 | 1 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 1 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| Caspofungin | 0.12 | 0.25 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.12 | 0.25 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| Micafungin | 0.5 | 1 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.25 | 0.5 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| Fluconazole | 0.5 | 4 | 85.2 | 14.8 | 0.5 | 32 | 87.5 | 12.5 | ||||
| Itraconazole | 0.12 | 0.25 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.12 | 0.5 | 93.8 | 6.2 | ||||
| Isavuconazole | 0.015 | 0.06 | 0.015 | 0.12 | ||||||||
| Posaconazole | 0.06 | 0.12 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.12 | 0.25 | 93.8 | 6.2 | ||||
| Voriconazole | 0.015 | 0.12 | 96.3 | 3.7 | 0.015 | 1 | 87.5 | 12.5 | ||||
| Amphotericin B | 0.5 | 0.5 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 1 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| C. guilliermondii | (18) | (12) | ||||||||||
| Anidulafungin | 2 | 2 | 94.4 | 0.0 | 2 | 4 | 83.3 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| Caspofungin | 0.5 | 1 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.25 | 0.5 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| Micafungin | 0.5 | 1 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 1 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| Fluconazole | 4 | >128 | 77.8 | 22.2 | 2 | 8 | 91.7 | 8.3 | ||||
| Itraconazole | 0.5 | 2 | 94.4 | 5.6 | 0.5 | 1 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| Isavuconazole | 0.25 | 4 | 0.12 | 0.25 | ||||||||
| Posaconazole | 0.25 | 1 | 77.8 | 22.2 | 0.25 | 0.5 | 91.7 | 8.3 | ||||
| Voriconazole | 0.06 | >4 | 0.06 | 0.12 | ||||||||
| Amphotericin B | 0.5 | 0.5 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 1 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| C. kefyr | (18) | (10) | ||||||||||
| Anidulafungin | 0.03 | 0.06 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.12 | 0.25 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| Caspofungin | 0.008 | 0.015 | 0.015 | 0.015 | ||||||||
| Micafungin | 0.03 | 0.06 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.06 | 0.12 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| Itraconazole | 0.12 | 0.25 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.12 | 0.25 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| Isavuconazole | ≤0.002 | 0.015 | ≤0.002 | 0.008 | ||||||||
| Posaconazole | 0.06 | 0.25 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.12 | 0.12 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| Voriconazole | 0.008 | 0.015 | 0.008 | 0.015 | ||||||||
| Amphotericin B | 1 | 2 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 1 | 1 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| C. metapsilosis | (13) | (1) | ||||||||||
| Anidulafungin | 0.12 | 0.5 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.25 | 100.0 | 0.0 | |||||
| Caspofungin | 0.06 | 0.25 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.06 | 100.0 | 0.0 | |||||
| Micafungin | 0.25 | 0.5 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.25 | 100.0 | 0.0 | |||||
| Fluconazole | 1 | 4 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 1 | 100.0 | 0.0 | |||||
| Itraconazole | 0.12 | 0.25 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.12 | 100.0 | 0.0 | |||||
| Isavuconazole | 0.015 | 0.03 | 0.015 | |||||||||
| Posaconazole | 0.06 | 0.12 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.12 | 100.0 | 0.0 | |||||
| Voriconazole | 0.015 | 0.06 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.015 | 100.0 | 0.0 | |||||
| Amphotericin B | 0.5 | 1 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 100.0 | 0.0 | |||||
| Cryptococcus neoformans var. grubii | (51) | (12) | ||||||||||
| Anidulafungin | >4 | >4 | >4 | >4 | ||||||||
| Caspofungin | >4 | >4 | >4 | >4 | ||||||||
| Micafungin | >4 | >4 | >4 | >4 | ||||||||
| Fluconazole | 4 | 4 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 4 | 8 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| Itraconazole | 0.12 | 0.25 | 94.1 | 5.9 | 0.12 | 0.25 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| Isavuconazole | 0.03 | 0.12 | 0.03 | 0.03 | ||||||||
| Posaconazole | 0.12 | 0.25 | 96.1 | 3.9 | 0.12 | 0.25 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| Voriconazole | 0.03 | 0.12 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| Amphotericin B | 0.5 | 1 | 52.9 | 47.1 | 1 | 1 | 33.3 | 66.7 | ||||
| Aspergillus fumigatus | (302) | (114) | ||||||||||
| Anidulafungin | 0.008 | 0.015 | 0.015 | 0.06 | ||||||||
| Caspofungin | 0.03 | 0.03 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.015 | 0.03 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| Micafungin | 0.008 | 0.015 | 0.008 | 0.015 | ||||||||
| Itraconazole | 0.5 | 1 | 93.0 | 7.0 | 1 | 1 | 91.2 | 8.8 | ||||
| Isavuconazole | 0.5 | 1 | 92.7 | 7.3 | 0.5 | 1 | 96.0 | 4.0 | ||||
| Posaconazole | 0.25 | 0.5 | 0.25 | 0.5 | ||||||||
| Voriconazole | 0.5 | 0.5 | 91.7 | 3.6 | 96.4 | 3.6 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 93.0 | 2.6 | 97.4 | 2.6 |
| Amphotericin B | 1 | 2 | 99.7 | 0.3 | 1 | 2 | 99.1 | 0.9 | ||||
| Aspergillus section Nigri | (61) | (20) | ||||||||||
| Anidulafungin | 0.004 | 0.008 | 0.008 | 0.008 | ||||||||
| Caspofungin | 0.015 | 0.03 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.015 | 0.03 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| Micafungin | 0.015 | 0.015 | 0.008 | 0.015 | ||||||||
| Itraconazole | 2 | 4 | 95.0 | 5.0 | 2 | 4 | 95.0 | 5.0 | ||||
| Isavuconazole | 2 | 4 | 98.4 | 1.6 | 1 | 2 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| Posaconazole | 0.5 | 1 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 1 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| Voriconazole | 1 | 2 | 98.4 | 1.6 | 0.5 | 2 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| Amphotericin B | 0.5 | 1 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 1 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| Aspergillus section Flavi | (61) | (20) | ||||||||||
| Anidulafungin | 0.004 | 0.008 | 0.008 | 0.015 | ||||||||
| Caspofungin | 0.015 | 0.03 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.015 | 0.015 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| Micafungin | 0.015 | 0.015 | 0.008 | 0.015 | ||||||||
| Itraconazole | 0.5 | 1 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 1 | 1 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| Isavuconazole | 0.5 | 1 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 1 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| Posaconazole | 0.5 | 0.5 | 98.4 | 1.6 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| Voriconazole | 0.5 | 1 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 1 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| Amphotericin B | 2 | 2 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 2 | 2 | 95.0 | 5.0 | ||||
| Aspergillus section Terrei | (19) | (16) | ||||||||||
| Anidulafungin | 0.008 | 0.015 | 0.015 | 0.03 | ||||||||
| Caspofungin | 0.015 | 0.03 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.015 | 0.03 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| Micafungin | 0.008 | 0.015 | 0.004 | 0.015 | ||||||||
| Itraconazole | 0.5 | 0.5 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 1 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| Isavuconazole | 0.25 | 0.5 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 2 | 87.5 | 12.5 | ||||
| Posaconazole | 0.25 | 0.25 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.25 | 0.5 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| Voriconazole | 0.25 | 0.5 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| Amphotericin B | 2 | 4 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 2 | 2 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| Aspergillus section Nidulantes | (17) | (5) | ||||||||||
| Anidulafungin | 0.008 | 0.015 | 0.015 | |||||||||
| Caspofungin | 0.03 | 2 | 0.015 | |||||||||
| Micafungin | 0.008 | 0.03 | 0.004 | |||||||||
| Itraconazole | 0.5 | 1 | 0.5 | |||||||||
| Isavuconazole | 0.12 | 0.25 | 0.12 | |||||||||
| Posaconazole | 0.25 | 0.5 | 0.25 | |||||||||
| Voriconazole | 0.12 | 0.25 | 0.12 | |||||||||
| Amphotericin B | 2 | 4 | 2 | |||||||||
| Mucorales group | (28) | (10) | ||||||||||
| Anidulafungin | >4 | >4 | >4 | >4 | ||||||||
| Caspofungin | >4 | >4 | >4 | >4 | ||||||||
| Micafungin | >4 | >4 | >4 | >4 | ||||||||
| Itraconazole | 1 | 8 | 2 | 8 | ||||||||
| Isavuconazole | 2 | 8 | 4 | >8 | ||||||||
| Posaconazole | 0.5 | 8 | 1 | >8 | ||||||||
| Voriconazole | >8 | >8 | >8 | >8 | ||||||||
| Amphotericin B | 0.5 | 1 | 0.5 | 2 | ||||||||
| Fusarium spp. | (15) | (10) | ||||||||||
| Anidulafungin | >4 | >4 | >4 | >4 | ||||||||
| Caspofungin | >4 | >4 | >4 | >4 | ||||||||
| Micafungin | >4 | >4 | 4 | >4 | ||||||||
| Itraconazole | >8 | >8 | >8 | >8 | ||||||||
| Isavuconazole | >8 | >8 | >8 | >8 | ||||||||
| Posaconazole | >8 | >8 | >8 | >8 | ||||||||
| Voriconazole | 8 | >8 | 8 | >8 | ||||||||
| Amphotericin B | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| Scedosporium spp. | (26) | (9) | ||||||||||
| Anidulafungin | 4 | >4 | 4 | |||||||||
| Caspofungin | 1 | >4 | >4 | |||||||||
| Micafungin | 0.5 | >4 | 4 | |||||||||
| Itraconazole | 8 | >8 | >8 | |||||||||
| Isavuconazole | 8 | 8 | >8 | |||||||||
| Posaconazole | 2 | >8 | >8 | |||||||||
| Voriconazole | 0.5 | 2 | 1 | |||||||||
| Amphotericin B | >4 | >4 | >4 | |||||||||
Abbreviations: CLSI, Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; ECV, epidemiological cut-off values; %S, percent susceptible; %R, percent resistant; %WT, percent wild-type; %NWT, percent non-wild-type.
Criteria published by CLSI M60 (2020) and M61 (2020). ECV criteria published in CLSI M59 (2020).
Isavuconazole ECVs were published by Espinell-Ingrof.68
The vast majority (>80%) of all tested species of Candida were susceptible (S) or wild-type (WT) to all echinocandins, triazoles, and amphotericin B, regardless of pre-COVID or COVID set (Table 2 and Supplementary Tables 1 and 2). Differences in the resistance or NWT rates to fluconazole between the COVID and pre-COVID sets was observed for C. glabrata (2.0% resistant, COVID; 5.8% resistant, pre-COVID [P value = 0.04]), C. parapsilosis (13.9% resistant, COVID; 9.8% resistant, pre-COVID [P value = 0.272]), C. tropicalis (3.5% resistant, COVID; 0.7% resistant, pre-COVID [P value = 0.09]), C. dubliniensis (0.0% NWT, COVID; 2.9% NWT, pre-COVID), C. lusitaniae (5.6% NWT, COVID; 7.5% NWT, pre-COVID), and C. guilliermondii (8.3% NWT, COVID; 22.2% NWT, pre-COVID) (Table 2 and Supplementary Tables 1 and 2). Elevated MIC values for fluconazole were observed in isolates of C. orthopsilosis from both sets (12.5% NWT, COVID; 14.8% NWT, pre-COVID). Resistance or NWT MIC values for voriconazole were noted among C. glabrata (4.8% NWT, COVID; 9.3% NWT, pre-COVID [P value = 0.065]), C. parapsilosis (4.2% resistant, COVID; 0.8% resistant, pre-COVID [P value = 0.021]), C. tropicalis (2.1% resistant, COVID; 0.0% resistant, pre-COVID [P value = 0.081]), and C. orthopsilosis (12.5% NWT, COVID; 3.7% NWT, pre-COVID; Table 2).
Among fluconazole-resistant isolates of C. glabrata, the decreased resistance to fluconazole and the other azoles during COVID was apparent in North America (7.3% resistant, pre-COVID; 1.4% resistant, COVID), Europe (6.3% resistant, pre-COVID; 3.7% resistant, COVID), Asia-Pacific (3.0% resistant, pre-COVID; 0.0% resistant, COVID), but not in Latin America (0.0% resistant, pre-COVID; 0.0% resistant, COVID). In contrast, the frequency of fluconazole resistance was greater during COVID for both C. parapsilosis and C. tropicalis in North America (4.5% resistant, pre-COVID; 10.0% resistant, COVID), Europe (16.1% resistant, pre-COVID; 19.8% resistant, COVID) and Asia-Pacific (2.3% resistant, pre-COVID; 8.0% resistant, COVID). Similar results were observed for fluconazole resistance in C. tropicalis, as there was an increase in resistance in most regions during COVID: North America (0.0% resistant, pre-COVID; 6.7% resistant, COVID), Europe (0.0% resistant, pre-COVID; 2.3% resistant, COVID), Asia-Pacific (1.4% resistant, pre-COVID; 4.7% resistant, COVID) and Latin America (1.8% resistant, pre-COVID; 0.0% resistant, COVID).
All C. krusei isolates were susceptible to voriconazole (Table 2). MIC90 values for isavuconazole were ≤1 mg/l for all species in both groups, except for C. guilliermondii isolates from the pre-COVID set (MIC90, 4 mg/l). All isolates from the pre-COVID and COVID sets, save one isolate of C. dubliniensis (MIC, 1 mg/l; NWT), exhibited a WT phenotype to amphotericin B. The less common species of Candida identified in both groups included C. fabianii, C. fermentati, C. inconspicua, C. metapsilosis, C. pelliculosa, and C. utilis. Comparable activity was observed for both the echinocandins and triazoles in the COVID and pre-COVID sets (Supplementary Table 1).
Among the isolates of Cryptococcus neoformans var. grubii, the MIC90 values for each of the nine antifungal agents tested were identical or within a single dilution step for the COVID and pre-COVID sets (Table 2). The ECV for amphotericin B and Cryptococcus neoformans var. grubii was 0.5 mg/l and bisected the MIC distribution in both COVID and pre-COVID sets, resulting in 66.7% NWT for the COVID set and 47.1% NWT for the pre-COVID set (Table 2).
The non-Candida yeasts included five isolates of Cryptococcus gattii SC, four of which were from patients in the pre-COVID period and were WT to fluconazole and voriconazole (Supplementary Tables 3 and 4). Isolates of Cryptococcus neoformans var. neoformans were detected in both groups and were all WT to fluconazole, posaconazole, and voriconazole (Supplementary Tables 3 and 4). Saprochaetae clavata isolates were found in both groups and exhibited similar MIC values for fluconazole (MIC range, 4–16 mg/l), isavuconazole (MIC range, 0.12–1 mg/l), itraconazole (MIC range, 0.12–0.5 mg/l), posaconazole (MIC range, 0.25–0.5 mg/l), and voriconazole (MIC range, 0.06–0.5 mg/l) (Supplementary Tables 3 and 4).
Aspergillus fumigatus was the most common species of filamentous fungi isolated from both groups. The vast majority of A. fumigatus (>91.0%) were WT to the echinocandins, triazoles, and amphotericin B (Table 2). There were 31 isolates that were NWT to one or more of the triazoles, 10 in the COVID set and 21 in the pre-COVID set (P value = 0.708; Table 2). Most of the isolates were from Europe (17/31; 54.8%), followed by North America (9/31; 29.0%) and the Asia-Pacific region (5/31; 16.1%). Most of the NWT isolates of A. fumigatus in the pre-COVID set were from Europe (13/21; 61.9%) compared to only 40% (4/10) in the COVID set. Most of the NWT isolates (20/31; 64.5%) were NWT to more than one triazole, including 5/10 (50.0%) in the COVID set and 15/21 (71.4%) in the pre-COVID set.
Aspergillus section Nigri and section Flavi were tied for second in rank order among the Aspergillus species in both the COVID and pre-COVID sets (12.6%, overall; 12.9%, pre-COVID; 11.7%, COVID). All isolates (100.0%) of Aspergillus section Nigri from both groups were WT to caspofungin, posaconazole, and amphotericin B (Table 2). One isolate from Australia in the COVID set (5.0%) was NWT to itraconazole. Aside from itraconazole, isolates of Aspergillus section Nigri from the COVID set were 100.0% WT to the other antifungal agents tested (Table 2). There were three isolates in the pre-COVID set that were NWT to itraconazole (5.0%), one each from Europe, North America, and the Asia-Pacific region. The isolate from Europe was also NWT to voriconazole.
The majority (87.5–100.0%) of Aspergillus section Flavii and Aspergillus section Terrei isolates from both COVID and pre-COVID sets exhibited a WT phenotype for the echinocandins, triazoles, and amphotericin B (Table 2 and Supplementary Tables 5 and 6). Among the section Flavi, single isolates were NWT to posaconazole in the pre-COVID set and to amphotericin B in the COVID set. Aspergillus section Terrei isolates were all WT to the agents tested, except for the isavuconazole NWT isolates (MIC, 2 mg/L) from the COVID year. Aspergillus section Nidulantes isolates were found in both groups and exhibited similarly low MIC values for the triazoles and echinocandins (Table 2 and Supplementary Tables 5 and 6). Among the less common species of Aspergillus, isolates of Aspergillus lentulus and Aspergillus section Usti were only detected in the pre-COVID set and showed comparably elevated MIC values for all the triazoles (Supplementary Table 6).
Members of the Mucorales group were found in both COVID and pre-COVID sets, although only 5 of 10 species (Table 1) represented were common to both groups (Table 2 and Supplementary Tables 7 and 8). All the Mucorales group isolates were resistant to the echinocandins (MIC50/90, >4/>4 mg/l) and voriconazole (MIC50/90, >8/>8 mg/l) (Table 2 and Supplementary Tables 7 and 8). Based on MIC50 values, posaconazole was the most active agent (MIC50, 0.5 mg/l, pre-COVID; 1 mg/l, COVID), followed by itraconazole (MIC50, 1 mg/l, pre-COVID; 2 mg/l, COVID) and isavuconazole (MIC50, 2 mg/l for pre-COVID; 4 mg/l, COVID). Among the species common to both groups, MIC values ranged from 0.5 to >8 mg/l for posaconazole, 0.5 to >8 mg/l for itraconazole, and 1 to 4 mg/l for isavuconazole (Supplementary Tables 7 and 8). Elevated MIC values (MICs, ≥8 mg/l) for posaconazole were observed for two isolates of M. circinelloides/ramosissimus (one each pre-COVID and COVID), two isolates of Rhizopus (pre-COVID), and one of Mucor sp. (pre-COVID). All of these isolates, save one isolate of M. circinelloides/ramosissimus, also exhibited elevated MIC values (MIC, >8 mg/l) to both isavuconazole and itraconazole.
None of the tested agents, except amphotericin B, showed useful in vitro activity against species of Fusarium (Table 2). The Scedosporium species in both groups showed decreased susceptibility to all agents tested except micafungin (MEC50, 0.5 mg/l, pre-COVID), posaconazole (MIC50, 2 mg/l, pre-COVID), and voriconazole (MIC50, 0.5 mg/l, pre-COVID; 1 mg/l, COVID; Table 2).
The other molds in this survey represented a wide range of species, most of which were isolated only from the pre-COVID set (Table 2 and Supplementary Tables 7 and 8).
Resistance mechanisms
A total of 48 isolates of Candida spp. were NWT to one or more echinocandin (13, COVID; 35, pre-COVID). The COVID set NWT isolates consisted of 9 isolates of C. glabrata, 3 C. albicans, and 1 C. dubliniensis. Among these isolates, seven (1 C. albicans, 1 C. dubliniensis, and 5 C. glabrata) were found to harbor a mutation in FKS1 or FKS2 (Table 3). The NWT isolates in the pre-COVID set consisted of 16 isolates of C. glabrata, 5 C. tropicalis, 2 C. albicans, and 12 C. parapsilosis. Mutations in FKS were detected in 12 of 16 isolates of C. glabrata and 1 of 2 isolates of C. albicans (Table 3). There were no mutations detected in the NWT isolates of C. tropicalis and C. parapsilosis.
Table 3.
Summary of FKS alterations detected among non-wild-type Candida spp. from pre-COVID (2018–2019) and COVID (2020).a
| MIC (mg/l)b,c | 1,3-β-D-glucan synthase mutations | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | State and/or country | Organism | Anidulafungin | Caspofungin | Micafungin | FKS1 HS1 | FKS1 HS2 | FKS2 HS1 | FKS2 HS2 |
| 2018–2019 | Hungary | C. glabrata | 1 (R) | 1 (R) | 0.5 (R) | WT | WT | F659 deletion | WT |
| Slovenia | C. glabrata | 1 (R) | 0.25 (I) | 0.06 (S) | WT | WT | F659Y | WT | |
| NY, USA | C. glabrata | 0.06 (S) | 0.06 (S) | 0.06 (S) | WT | WT | F659 deletion | WT | |
| NY, USA | C. glabrata | 2 (R) | 1 (R) | 1 (R) | WT | WT | S663P | WT | |
| VA, USA | C. glabrata | 4 (R) | 4 (R) | 4 (R) | Frame shiftd | Frame shiftd | S663P | WT | |
| Italy | C. albicans | 1 (R) | 1 (R) | 1 (R) | S645P | WT | NT | NT | |
| Spain | C. glabrata | 2 (R) | >4 (R) | 1 (R) | WT | WT | S663P | WT | |
| CA, USA | C. glabrata | 1 (R) | 1 (R) | 0.5 (R) | WT | WT | S663P | WT | |
| CO, USA | C. glabrata | 0.25 (I) | 0.25 (I) | 0.25 (R) | WT | WT | F659 deletion | WT | |
| CO, USA | C. glabrata | 0.25 (I) | 0.12 (S) | 0.06 (S) | WT | WT | F659 deletion | WT | |
| CO, USA | C. glabrata | 1 (R) | 1 (R) | 0.25 (R) | WT | WT | S663P | WT | |
| Australia | C. glabrata | 2 (R) | 0.5 (R) | 0.5 (R) | WT | WT | S663P | WT | |
| Australia | C. glabrata | 0.25 (I) | 0.25 (I) | 0.06 (S) | WT | WT | F659S | WT | |
| 2020 | CO, USA | C. glabrata | 0.5 (R) | 0.25 (I) | 0.25 (R) | WT | WT | R665G | WT |
| NY, USA | C. glabrata | 2 (R) | 4 (R) | 1 (R) | S629P | WT | WT | WT | |
| Slovenia | C. dubliniensis | 0.5 (NWT) | 2 | 1 (NWT) | S645P | WT | NT | NT | |
| Slovenia | C. albicans | 0.25 (S) | 0.25 (S) | 0.25 (S) | S645P | WT | NT | NT | |
| WA, USA | C. glabrata | 0.25 (I) | 0.12 (S) | 0.06 (S) | L630Q | WT | WT | WT | |
| WA, USA | C. glabrata | 4 (R) | >4 (R) | 4 (R) | S629P | WT | WT | WT | |
| Chile | C. glabrata | 1 (R) | 0.25 (I) | 0.25 (R) | WT | WT | Y657 deletion, F658Y | WT | |
Abbreviations: WT, wild-type; NT, not tested.
Categorical interpretations of susceptible (S), intermediate (I), and resistant (R) follow CLSI breakpoints.44
NWT, non-wild-type based on ECV criteria (CLSI M59).
The FKS1 had 8 nucleotides insertion leading to frameshift beyond amino acid A597.
Among echinocandin-NWT C. glabrata, the most frequent mutation in the pre-COVID group of isolates was S663P in FKS2 HS1 (6 isolates), followed by a deletion or alterations of F659 in FKS2 HS1 (6 isolates). Notably, these mutations were not observed in the COVID group. Most of those isolates exhibited diverse mutations in FKS1 HS1, while only one isolate from the pre-COVID group had mutations in this region. All C. albicans and C. dubliniensis isolates displayed a S645P mutation in FKS1 HS1 regardless of the year (Table 3). Among the FKS mutants, the majority (55.0%) were from North America (53.8%, pre-COVID; 57.1%, COVID).
There were a total of 31 isolates of Aspergillus fumigatus that were NWT to one or more of the triazoles (10, COVID; 21, pre-COVID). All but two (29/31, 93.5%) A. fumigatus isolates were NWT to itraconazole, 17/31 (54.8%) were NWT to isavuconazole, 13/31 (41.9%) were NWT to voriconazole, and 8/31 (25.8%) were NWT to posaconazole. Among the isolates from the COVID set, 3 of 10 (30%) isolates were found to have alterations in CYP51A (Table 4). Each of the 3 A. fumigatus isolates possessed a different set of alterations and a different geographical origin. The isolate from the US harbored multiple alterations in CYP51A, F46Y, M172V, N248T, D255E, and E427K. The isolate from France carried a Q42L alteration in CYP51B. The isolate from New Zealand carried a single alteration G138C in CYP51A.
Table 4.
Summary of CYP alterations detected among non-wild-type Aspergillus spp. isolates from pre-COVID (2018–2019) and COVID (2020).
| MIC (mg/l)a | CYP alterations | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | State and/or country | Organism | Isavuconazoleb | Voriconazole | Itraconazole | Posaconazolec | CYP51A | CYP51B |
| 2018–2019 | Germany | A. niger | 4 (WT) | 4 (NWT) | 8 (NWT) | 1 (WT) | K77Q | WT |
| IN, USA | A. fumigatus | 1 (WT) | 1 (WT) | 2 (NWT) | 1 (NWT) | I242V | WT | |
| Canada | A. fumigatus | 1 (WT) | 0.5 (WT) | 2 (NWT) | 0.5 (WT) | I242V | WT | |
| Australia | A. fumigatus | 1 (WT) | 2 (NWT) | 1 (WT) | 0.25 (WT) | WT | Q42L | |
| VT, USA | A. fumigatus | 2 (NWT) | 1 (WT) | 2 (NWT) | 0.5 (WT) | F46Y, M172V, E427K | WT | |
| Czech Republic | A. fumigatus | 2 (NWT) | 1 (WT) | 2 (NWT) | 0.5 (WT) | F46Y, M172V, N248T, D255E, E427K | WT | |
| Belgium | A. fumigatus | 4 (NWT) | 2 (NWT) | 4 (NWT) | 1 (NWT) | TR34/L98H | WT | |
| Italy | A. fumigatus | 8 (NWT) | 2 (NWT) | 8 (NWT) | 1 (NWT) | TR34/L98H | WT | |
| Italy | A. fumigatus | >8 (NWT) | >8 (NWT) | >8 (NWT) | 4 (NWT) | TR34/L98H | WT | |
| Italy | A. fumigatus | 4 (NWT) | 2 (NWT) | 4 (NWT) | 1 (NWT) | TR34/L98H | WT | |
| Italy | A. fumigatus | 4 (NWT) | 1 (NWT) | 4 (NWT) | 0.5 (NWT) | TR34/L98H | WT | |
| Italy | A. fumigatus | 4 (NWT) | 2 (NWT) | 4 (NWT) | 1 (NWT) | TR34/L98H | WT | |
| Thailand | A. flavus | 0.5 (WT) | 2 (NWT) | 1 (WT) | 1 (NWT) | R5H | K165E | |
| VA, USA | A. fumigatus | 1 (WT) | 0.5 (WT) | 2 (NWT) | 0.5 (WT) | I242V | WT | |
| Slovenia | A. fumigatus | 4 (NWT) | 2 (NWT) | >8 (NWT) | 0.5 (WT) | TR34/L98H | WT | |
| Italy | A. fumigatus | 4 (NWT) | 2 (NWT) | 2 (NWT) | 0.5 (WT) | TR34/L98H | WT | |
| Italy | A. fumigatus | 2 (NWT) | 2 (NWT) | 2 (NWT) | 0.5 (WT) | TR34/L98H | WT | |
| VA, USA | A. fumigatus | >8 (NWT) | 4 (NWT) | >8 (NWT) | 0.5 (WT) | G448S | WT | |
| Belgium | A. fumigatus | >8 (NWT) | >8 (NWT) | 8 (NWT) | 0.5 (WT) | Y121F, M172I, T289A, G448S, TR46 | WT | |
| 2020 | VT, USA | A. fumigatus | 1 (WT) | 0.5 (WT) | 2 (NWT) | 0.5 (WT) | F46Y, M172V, N248T, D255E, E427K | WT |
| France | A. fumigatus | 4 (NWT) | 1 (WT) | 4 (NWT) | 1 (NWT) | WT | Q42L | |
| New Zealand | A. fumigatus | >8 (NWT) | 8 (NWT) | >8 (NWT) | 8 (NWT) | G138C | WT | |
The NWT isolates from the pre-COVID set included 21 isolates of A. fumigatus, 17 of which (81.0%) carried alterations in CYP51 (Table 4). In contrast to the isolates from the COVID set, the most frequent alteration was CYP51A TR34/L98H in the pre-COVID set. This alteration was carried by nine isolates, seven from Italy, one from Belgium, and one from Slovenia. Three isolates from North America, two from the USA and one from Canada, carried the alteration I242V in CYP51A. One North American (USA) isolate carried the CYP51A alteration G448S (NWT to isavuconazole,47 voriconazole, and itraconazole). A single isolate from Australia carried a CYP51B Q42L alteration and was only NWT to voriconazole. Multiple alterations in CYP51A were detected in isolates from the USA, Czech Republic, and Belgium.
Aside from these A. fumigatus isolates, there was 1 isolate of Aspergillus section Nigri from Europe that was NWT to itraconazole and voriconazole. This isolate was subjected to whole genome sequencing and was found to harbor a K77Q alteration in CYP51A. An isolate of Aspergillus section Flavi from Thailand was found to be NWT to voriconazole and posaconazole and carried alterations in CYP51A (R5H) and CYP51B (K165E).
Conclusion
COVID-19 presents with a spectrum of disease manifestations ranging from asymptomatic or non-specific flu-like symptoms to pneumonia, sepsis, and life-threatening complications such as ARDS and multiple organ failure. In addition, secondary bacterial and fungal infections have proven to be major risk factors for adverse COVID-19 outcomes.10,11,14 Concern for these secondary infectious complications of COVID-19 have resulted in the increased use of empiric antimicrobial therapy with concomitant fears of increased AMR due to drug pressure.13,48,49 Whereas resistance to antibacterial agents has garnered most of the attention in the literature,5,10,11,15,16 emergence of antifungal-resistant fungi has largely been confined to reports of single cases of azole-resistant A. fumigatus32 or azole- and echinocandin-resistant species of Candida following extended exposure to antifungal therapy.25,36,50 More recently, invasive infections due to the Mucorales have been documented as COVID-19 complications in select areas of the world.26,33,34
Several reports raised concern regarding invasive candidiasis as a complication of severe COVID-19 infection.18,22,24,25,29,35,36,50 These reports describe either clusters of infection (e.g., Candida auris) or variations in species distribution with the emergence of less common species.18,22,24,25,29,35,36,50 When reported, resistance to antifungal agents during the COVID period is generally described as dependent upon species identification rather than assessment of in vitro resistance.36 Investigations are required to determine if there are broad shifts in the pathogen distribution and emergence of both acquired and intrinsic antifungal resistance associated with the COVID pandemic.
Although the rank order of the most prominent species of Candida (C. albicans > C. glabrata > C. parapsilosis > C. tropicalis) is the same for both pre-COVID and COVID time periods, some differences should be noted. The occurrence of C. glabrata, C. tropicalis, C. dubliniensis, and C. krusei increased during COVID compared to the pre-COVID years. Only C. parapsilosis and C. lusitaniae were less common during COVID than before COVID.
Changes to the in vitro susceptibility of these species are perhaps more interesting than subtle shifts in species. C. glabrata is possibly the one species that appeared to increase in both frequency and antifungal resistance in the past two decades.51,52 This species is well-known for resistance to fluconazole and the other azoles. Most recently, C. glabrata has emerged as resistant to both the azoles and the echinocandin class of agents.50,53 As such, it is notable that although the frequency of C. glabrata as a cause of infection slightly increased during COVID (19.2% of Candida, COVID; 18.0%, pre-COVID), resistance to fluconazole decreased from 5.8 to 2.0% over this time (Table 2). We previously noticed this trend52 and found that it may be influenced by patient age, as resistance to the azoles decreased with patient age. However, there was no relationship between azole resistance and age in the present survey (data not shown).
C. parapsilosis is the one species of Candida that is most closely associated with central venous catheter bloodstream infection and breaks in infection prevention protocols.54 As such, C. parapsilosis might be a prominent pathogen in the chaos of a COVID ICU. Indeed, fluconazole-resistant isolates of C. parapsilosis originated from the ICU more in the COVID set (52.2%) than pre-COVID (37.8%) set. This species was less frequent in the COVID set than in the pre-COVID set; however, increased resistance to fluconazole was prominent in the COVID set isolates (9.8%, pre-COVID; 13.9%, COVID). Notably, this level of resistance to fluconazole surpasses C. glabrata, a species notorious for decreased susceptibility to the azoles in general.52 Whereas previously clinicians were fearful of using fluconazole empirically due to the threat of fluconazole-resistant C. glabrata,52,55–57 now it is apparent that other species, namely C. parapsilosis and C. tropicalis, may be becoming more resistant to the azole class of agents than C. glabrata.52,58 These observations underscore the importance identifying Candida to the species level and determining the antifungal susceptibility profile to optimize the care of patients with invasive candidiasis.
C. tropicalis has long been considered one of the most virulent species of Candida, causing severe infections in neutropenic cancer patients.59C. tropicalis was the fourth most frequent species of Candida in both pre-COVID and COVID sets. This species, while virulent, has not been especially resistant to any of the antifungal agents.52 As with C. parapsilosis, resistance to the azole class of agents was more prominent in the COVID set (3.5% resistant to fluconazole) than in the pre-COVID set (0.7% resistant to fluconazole) and exceeded that of C. glabrata (2.0% resistant to fluconazole; Table 2).
The finding of emerging resistance to fluconazole among common species of Candida and very low rates of resistance to the echinocandins among species other than C. glabrata provides support for current recommendations regarding the use of echinocandins as an initial empirical therapy for invasive candidiasis pending the results of species identification and antifungal susceptibility testing.56
Perhaps one of the greatest concerns to treating IFI has been the emergence of resistance to the mold-active triazoles in Aspergillus fumigatus.60–62 Triazole-resistant A. fumigatus has been detected worldwide, but it is most prevalent in Europe.60 Characterization of the mechanisms of resistance to the azoles in A. fumigatus revealed important patterns relative to the epidemiology of infections.60,62–64 Prolonged drug pressure, such as that seen in the management of chronic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis,60,63,64 has been shown to result in several different point mutations in the CYP51 genes. We detected more CYP51 mutant strains of A. fumigatus in the pre-COVID set, likely due to the longer pre-COVID time period despite the comparable frequency of NWT strains in both groups (Table 2).
Although considerably less common than the Candida or Aspergillus species, the non-Candida yeasts and the non-Aspergillus molds present a diverse number of species and a diverse set of antifungal resistance profiles marked by either an intrinsic resistance to the azoles, the echinocandins, or both.65–67 A greater diversity of species of both yeasts and molds were present in the pre-COVID than the COVID set, likely due to the longer pre-COVID survey time. The non-Candida yeasts that were common to both groups include several species with intrinsic resistance to one or more antifungal agent: T. asahi, which is resistant to echinocandins; S. clavata, which is resistant to fluconazole and the echinocandins; and R. mucilaginosa, which is resistant to the azoles and the echinocandins.
Among the non-Aspergillus molds, the Mucorales, Fusarium, Scedosporium, L. prolificans, and Scopulariopsis brevicaulis/S. brumptii represent fungi with intrinsic resistance to one or more antifungal agents.65–67 These pathogens were detected in both pre-COVID and COVID sets, but the individual species were more frequent in the pre-COVID set. Two additional species with resistance to the triazoles were only detected in the pre-COVID set: Microascus cirrosus (MIC, >8 mg/l for all 4 triazoles) and Rasamsonia argillacea SC (MIC50, >8 mg/l for isavuconazole and voriconazole).
These diverse species of yeasts and molds are frequently difficult to identify with routine methods and exhibit highly variable resistance profiles requiring the use of state-of-the-art species identification methods, such as MALDI–TOF MS or nucleic acid sequencing, as well as antifungal susceptibility testing to optimise infection management.38,65
During the COVID-19 pandemic, invasive infection with Mucorales species has emerged as an infrequent infectious complication relative to CAPA or CAIC.26,33,34 Whereas cases of CAM have been reported in several areas of the world, most cases have been reported from India, where diabetes and glucocorticoid exposure in COVID are primary risk factors.26 Unfortunately, India was not among the participating countries in the SENTRY Program. There were few isolates of Mucorales from either group (0.8% of all isolates; 0.9%, pre-COVID; 0.6%, COVID). Posaconazole was the most active of the mold-active triazoles in both groups. Several isolates of Mucorales, including M. circinelloides/ramosissimus, Rhizopus spp., and Mucor sp., were resistant/NWT to posaconazole, itraconazole, and isavuconazole.
There are some limitations to this work that must be acknowledged. First, patient-level data is not collected in SENTRY. Second, patients were not identified as infected with COVID-19 in 2020; rather, we compared isolates from patients hospitalized in the pre-COVID and COVID periods. Third, we did not link the isolation of fungal species and associated resistance profiles with patient presentation, treatment, or outcome. Finally, the SENTRY program is not a population-based survey. Due to the prevalence-based study design of SENTRY (see ref 52), each medical center only sends a limited number of isolates each year. As such, the numbers of isolates may reflect what was seen in one part of the year but not necessarily the rest of the year.
In summary, we did not detect any major shift of antifungal resistance among clinical isolates of yeasts and molds from the pre-COVID and COVID periods. Most Candida and Aspergillus species from both eras were susceptible or WT to the azoles, echinocandins, and amphotericin B. The most notable changes in resistance profiles were seen with Candida and the azoles. When pre-COVID and COVID sets were compared, fluconazole resistance and resistance to other the azoles decreased among C. glabrata isolates while it increased among C. parapsilosis and C. tropicalis isolates. Importantly, azole resistance in both C. parapsilosis and C. tropicalis now exceeds that of C. glabrata, precluding the use of simple species identification to guide the use of fluconazole in treating Candida infections. These findings underscore the necessity for accurate species identification and determination of in vitro susceptibility of fungal isolates to optimize the treatment of IFI during the COVID pandemic.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank all participants of the SENTRY Surveillance Program for providing fungal isolates. The authors also would like to thank Amy Chen and Judy Oberholser for editorial assistance.
Contributor Information
Michael A Pfaller, JMI Laboratories, North Liberty, IA 52317; Department of Pathology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA.
Cecilia G Carvalhaes, JMI Laboratories, North Liberty, IA 52317.
Sean DeVries, JMI Laboratories, North Liberty, IA 52317.
Paul R Rhomberg, JMI Laboratories, North Liberty, IA 52317.
Mariana Castanheira, JMI Laboratories, North Liberty, IA 52317.
Funding
This study was supported by Pfizer. Pfizer was involved in the design and decision to present these results and JMI Laboratories received compensation fees for services in relation to preparing the manuscript. Pfizer was not involved in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data.
Transparency statement
JMI Laboratories contracted to perform services in 2018–2020 for Achaogen, Inc., Albany College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, Allecra Therapeutics, Allergan, AmpliPhi Biosciences Corp., Amicrobe Advanced Biomaterials, Amplyx, Antabio, American Proficiency Institute, Arietis Corp., Arixa Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Astellas Pharma Inc., Athelas, Basilea Pharmaceutica Ltd., Bayer AG, Becton, Dickinson and Company, bioMerieux SA, Boston Pharmaceuticals, Bugworks Research Inc., Cepheid, Cidara Therapeutics, Inc., CorMedix Inc., DePuy Synthes, Destiny Pharma, Discuva Ltd., Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH, Emery Pharma, Entasis Therapeutics, Eurofarma Laboratorios SA, US Food and Drug Administration, Fox Chase Chemical Diversity Center, Inc., Gateway Pharmaceutical LLC, GenePOC Inc., Geom Therapeutics, Inc., GlaxoSmithKline plc, Harvard University, Helperby, HiMedia Laboratories, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., ICON plc, Idorsia Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Iterum Therapeutics plc, Laboratory Specialists, Inc., Melinta Therapeutics, Inc., Merck & Co., Inc., Microchem Laboratory, Micromyx, MicuRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Mutabilis Co., Nabriva Therapeutics plc, NAEJA-RGM, Novartis AG, Oxoid Ltd., Paratek Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Pfizer, Inc., Polyphor Ltd., Pharmaceutical Product Development, LLC, Prokaryotics Inc., Qpex Biopharma, Inc., Roivant Sciences, Ltd., Safeguard Biosystems, Scynexis, Inc.,SeLux Diagnostics, Inc., Shionogi and Co., Ltd., SinSa Labs, Spero Therapeutics, Summit Pharmaceuticals International Corp., Synlogic, T2 Biosystems, Inc., Taisho Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., TenNor Therapeutics Ltd., Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals, Theravance Biopharma, University of Colorado, University of Southern California-San Diego, University of North Texas Health Science Center, VenatoRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Viosera Therapeutics, Vyome Therapeutics Inc., Wockhardt, Yukon Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Zai Lab, Zavante Therapeutics, Inc. There are no speakers’ bureaus or stock options to declare.
Declaration of interest
The authors have declared no conflict of interest.
References
- 1. Kim L, Garg S, O'Halloran Aet al. . Risk factors for intensive care unit admission and in-hospital mortality among hospitalized adults identified through the US Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)-Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network (COVID-NET). Clin Infect Dis. 2021; 72: e206–e214. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Anonymous . Antimicrobial resistance in the age of COVID-19. Nat Microbiol. 2020; 5: 779. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Antinori S, Galimberti L, Milazzo L, Ridolfo AL.. Bacterial and fungal infections among patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia. Le infezioni in medicina : rivista periodica di eziologia, epidemiologia, diagnostica, clinica e terapia delle patologie infettive. 2020; 28: 29–36. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Bassetti M, Kollef MH, Timsit JF.. Bacterial and fungal superinfections in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Intensive Care Med. 2020; 46: 2071–2074. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Cultrera R, Barozzi A, Libanore Met al. . Co-infections in critically ill patients with or without COVID-19: a comparison of clinical microbial culture findings. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021; 18: 4358. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Ghosh S, Bornman C, Zafer MM.. Antimicrobial resistance threats in the emerging COVID-19 pandemic: where do we stand? J Infection Public Health. 2021; 14: 555–560. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Hughes S, Troise O, Donaldson H, Mughal N, Moore LSP.. Bacterial and fungal coinfection among hospitalized patients with COVID-19: a retrospective cohort study in a UK secondary-care setting. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2020; 26: 1395–1399. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Kost GJ. Geospatial spread of antimicrobial resistance, bacterial and fungal threats to Coronavirus Infectious Disease 2019 (COVID-19) survival, and point-of-care solutions. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2021; 145: 145–167. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Kubin CJ, McConville TH, Dietz Det al. . Characterization of bacterial and fungal infections in hospitalized patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 and factors associated with health care-associated infections. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2021; 8: ofab201. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Musuuza JS, Watson L, Parmasad V, Putman-Buehler N, Christensen L, Safdar N.. Prevalence and outcomes of co-infection and superinfection with SARS-CoV-2 and other pathogens: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2021; 16: e0251170. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Posteraro B, De Angelis G, Menchinelli Get al. . Risk factors for mortality in adult COVID-19 patients who develop bloodstream infections mostly caused by antimicrobial-resistant organisms: analysis at a large teaching hospital in Italy. J Clin Med. 2021; 10: 1752. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Rawson TM, Moore LSP, Zhu Net al. . Bacterial and fungal coinfection in individuals with Coronavirus: a rapid review to support COVID-19 antimicrobial prescribing. Clin Infect Dis. 2020; 71: 2459–2468. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Vaughn VM, Gandhi TN, Petty LAet al. . Empiric antibacterial therapy and community-onset bacterial coinfection in patients hospitalized with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): a multi-hospital cohort study. Clin Infect Dis. 2021; 72: e533–e541. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Zhang H, Zhang Y, Wu Jet al. . Risks and features of secondary infections in severe and critical ill COVID-19 patients. Emerg Microbes Infect. 2020; 9: 1958–1964. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Clancy CJ, Schwartz IS, Kula B, Nguyen MH.. Bacterial superinfections among persons with Coronavirus Disease 2019: a comprehensive review of data from postmortem studies. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2021; 8: ofab065. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Fattorini L, Creti R, Palma Cet al. . Bacterial coinfections in COVID-19: an underestimated adversary. Ann Ist Super Sanita. 2020; 56: 359–364. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Arastehfar A, Carvalho A, van de Veerdonk FLet al. . COVID-19 associated pulmonary Aspergillosis (CAPA)-from immunology to treatment. J Fungi (Basel). 2020; 6: 91. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Arastehfar A, Carvalho A, Nguyen MHet al. . COVID-19-associated Candidiasis (CAC): an underestimated complication in the absence of immunological predispositions? J Fungi (Basel). 2020; 6: 211. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Gangneux JP, Bougnoux ME, Dannaoui E, Cornet M, Zahar JR.. Invasive fungal diseases during COVID-19: we should be prepared. J Mycol Med. 2020; 30: 100971. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Lai CC, Yu WL.. COVID-19 associated with pulmonary aspergillosis: a literature review. J Microbiol Immunol Infect. 2021; 54: 46–53. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Marr KA, Platt A, Tornheim JAet al. . Aspergillosis complicating severe coronavirus disease. Emerg Infect Dis. 2021; 27: 18–25. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Mastrangelo A, Germinario BN, Ferrante Met al. . Candidemia in COVID-19 patients: incidence and characteristics in a prospective cohort compared to historical non-COVID-19 controls. Clin Infect Dis. 2020:ciaa1594. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa1594 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Nestler M, Godbout E, Lee Ket al. . Fungal superinfection in patients with COVID-19: role of antifungal stewardship? Am J Infect Control. 2021; 49: 279–280. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Nucci M, Barreiros G, Guimaraes LF, Deriquehem VAS, Castineiras AC, Nouer SA.. Increased incidence of candidemia in a tertiary care hospital with the COVID-19 pandemic. Mycoses. 2021; 64: 152–156. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Seagle EE, Jackson BR, Lockhart SRet al. . The landscape of candidemia during the COVID-19 pandemic. Clin Infect Dis. 2021:in press. doi:10.1093/cid/ciab562. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Singh AK, Singh R, Joshi SR, Misra A.. Mucormycosis in COVID-19: a systematic review of cases reported worldwide and in India. Diabetes Metab Syndr. 2021; 15: 102146. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Segrelles-Calvo G, de SAGR, Frases S.. Systemic mycoses: a potential alert for complications in COVID-19 patients. Future Microbiol. 2020; 15:1405–1413. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Song G, Liang G, Liu W.. Fungal co-infections associated with global COVID-19 pandemic: a clinical and diagnostic perspective from China. Mycopathologia. 2020; 185: 599–606. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. White PL, Dhillon R, Healy B, Wise MP, Backs M.. Candidaemia in COVID-19, a link to disease pathology or increased clinical pressures? Clin Infect Dis. 2020:in press. doi:10.1093/cid/ciaa1597. [Google Scholar]
- 30. Garcia-Vidal C, Sanjuan G, Moreno-Garcia Eet al. . Incidence of co-infections and superinfections in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: a retrospective cohort study. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2021; 27: 83–88. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Alanio A, Delliere S, Fodil S, Bretagne S, Megarbane B.. Prevalence of putative invasive pulmonary aspergillosis in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Lancet Respir Med. 2020; 8: e48–e49. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Meijer EFJ, Dofferhoff ASM, Hoiting O, Buil JB, Meis JF.. Azole-resistant COVID-19-associated pulmonary Aspergillosis in an immunocompetent host: a case report. J Fungi (Basel). 2020; 6: 79. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33. Garg D, Muthu V, Sehgal ISet al. . Coronavirus disease (Covid-19) associated Mucormycosis (CAM): case report and systematic review of literature. Mycopathologia. 2021; 186: 289–298. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34. Patel A, Agarwal R, Rudramurthy SMet al. . Multicenter epidemiologic study of Coronavirus disease-associated Mucormycosis, India. Emerg Infect Dis. 2021; 27: 2349–2359. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35. Guisado-Gil AB, Infante-Dominguez C, Penalva Get al. . Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on antimicrobial consumption and hospital-acquired Candidemia and multidrug-resistant bloodstream infections. Antibiotics (Basel). 2020; 9: 816. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36. Villanueva-Lozano H, Trevino-Rangel RJ, Gonzalez GMet al. . Outbreak of Candida auris infection in a COVID-19 hospital in Mexico. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2021; 27: 813–816. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37. Castanheira M, Messer SA, Jones RN, Farrell DJ, Pfaller MA.. Activity of echinocandins and triazoles against a contemporary (2012) worldwide collection of yeast and molds collected from invasive infections. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2014; 44: 320–326. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38. Pfaller MA, Woosley LN, Messer SA, Jones RN, Castanheira M.. Significance of molecular identification and antifungal susceptibility of clinically significant yeasts and molds in a global antifungal surveillance program. Mycopathologia. 2012; 174: 259–271. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39. Pfaller MA. Invasive fungal infections and approaches to their diagnosis. In: Sails A, Tang Y, eds. Methods in Microbiology. Oxford: Academic Press; 2015:219–287. [Google Scholar]
- 40. Pfaller MA, Rhomberg PR, Wiederhold NPet al. . In vitro activity of isavuconazole versus opportunistic fungal pathogens from two mycology reference laboratories. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2018; 62: e01230. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41. M27Ed4 . Reference method for broth dilution antifungal susceptbility testing of yeasts. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. 2017. [Google Scholar]
- 42. M38Ed3 . Reference method for broth dilution antifungal susceptibilty testing of filamentous fungi, third edition. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. 2018. [Google Scholar]
- 43. M59Ed3 . Epidemiological Cut-off values for antifungal susceptibility testing, third edition. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. 2020. [Google Scholar]
- 44. M60Ed2 . Performance standards for antifungal susceptibility testing of yeasts. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. 2020. [Google Scholar]
- 45. M61Ed2 . Performance standards for antifungal susceptibility testing of filamentous fungi, second edition. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. 2020. [Google Scholar]
- 46. Castanheira M, Deshpande LM, Davis AP, Rhomberg PR, Pfaller MA.. Monitoring antifungal resistance in a global collection of invasive yeasts and molds: application of CLSI epidemiological cut-off values and whole genome sequencing analysis for detection of azole resistance in Candida albicans. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2017; 61: e00906. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47. Castanheira M, Collingsworth TD, Davis AP, Deshpande LM, Pfaller MA.. Isavuconazole nonwild-type Aspergillus fumigatus isolates from a global surveillance study display alterations in multiple genes involved in the ergosterol biosynthesis pathway not previously associated with resistance to other azoles. Mycoses. 2021; 64: 1279–1290. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48. Anonymous . Antimicrobial resistance in the age of COVID-19. Nature Microbiol. 2020; 5: 779. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49. Russell CD, Fairfield CJ, Drake TMet al. . Co-infections, secondary infections, and antimicrobial use in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 during the first pandemic wave from the ISARIC WHO CCP-UK study: a multicentre, prospective cohort study. Lancet Microbe. 2021; 2: e354–e365. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50. Posteraro B, Torelli R, Vella Aet al. . Pan-Echinocandin-resistant Candida glabrata bloodstream infection complicating COVID-19: a fatal case report. J Fungi (Basel). 2020; 6: 163. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51. Pfaller MA, Diekema DJ.. Epidemiology of invasive candidiasis: a persistent public health problem. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2007; 20: 133–163. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52. Pfaller MA, Diekema DJ, Turnidge JD, Castanheira M, Jones RN.. Twenty years of the SENTRY Antifungal Surveillance Program: Results for Candida species From 1997-2016. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2019; 6: S79–S94. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53. Alexander BD, Johnson MD, Pfeiffer CDet al. . Increasing echinocandin resistance in Candida glabrata: clinical failure correlates with presence of FKS mutations and elevated minimum inhibitory concentrations. Clin Infect Dis. 2013; 56: 1724–1732. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54. Trofa D, Gacser A, Nosanchuk JD.. Candida parapsilosis, an emerging fungal pathogen. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2008; 21: 606–625. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55. Fidel PL Jr., Vazquez JA, Sobel JD. Candida glabrata: Review of epidemiology, pathogenesis, and clinical disease with comparison to C. albicans. Clin Microbiol Rev. 1999; 12: 80–96. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56. Pappas PG, Kauffman CA, Andes Det al. . Clinical practice guideline for the management of candidiasis: 2016 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2016; 62: 409–417. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57. Pfaller MA, Diekema DJ.. Rare and emerging opportunistic fungal pathogens: concern for resistance beyond Candida albicans and Aspergillus fumigatus. J Clin Microbiol. 2004; 42: 4419–4431. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58. Oxman DA, Chow JK, Frendl Get al. . Candidaemia associated with decreased in vitro fluconazole susceptibility: Is Candida speciation predictive of the susceptibility pattern? J Antimicrob Chemother. 2010; 65: 1460–1465. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59. Zuza-Alves DL, Silva-Rocha WP, Chaves GM.. An update on Candida tropicalis based on basic and clinical approaches. Front Microbiol. 2017; 8:1927. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60. Rivero-Menendez O, Alastruey-Izquierdo A, Mellado E, Cuenca-Estrella M.. Triazole resistance in Aspergillus spp.: a worldwide problem? J Fungi (Basel). 2016; 2: 21. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61. Thornton CR. Detection of the ‘big five’ mold killers of humans: Aspergillus, Fusarium, Lomentospora, Scedosporium and Mucormycetes. Adv Appl Microbiol. 2020; 110:1–61. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62. Verweij PE, Chowdhary A, Melchers WJ, Meis JF.. Azole resistance in Aspergillus fumigatus: can we retain the clinical use of mold-active antifungal azoles? Clin Infect Dis. 2016; 62: 362–368. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63. Arikan-Akdagli S, Ghannoum M, Meis JF.. Antifungal resistance: specific focus on multidrug resistance in Candida auris and secondary azole resistance in Aspergillus fumigatus. J Fungi (Basel). 2018; 4: 129. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64. Bueid A, Howard SJ, Moore CBet al. . Azole antifungal resistance in Aspergillus fumigatus: 2008 and 2009. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2010; 65: 2116–2118. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 65. Araujo R, Oliveira M, Amorim A, Sampaio-Maia B.. Unpredictable susceptibility of emerging clinical molds to tri-azoles: review of the literature and upcoming challenges for mold identification. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2015; 34: 1289–1301. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 66. Miceli MH, Lee SA.. Emerging molds: epidemiological trends and antifungal resistance. Mycoses. 2011; 54: e666–e678. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67. Skiada A, Pavleas I, Drogari-Apiranthitou M.. Rare fungal infectious agents: a lurking enemy. F1000Res. 2017; 6:1917. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 68. Espinel-Ingroff A, Chowdhary A, Gonzalez GMet al. . Multicenter study of isavuconazole MIC distributions and epidemiological cut-off values for Aspergillus spp. for the CLSI M38-A2 broth microdilution method. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2013; 57: 3823–3828. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]