Emerging Resistance to Azoles and Echinocandins: Clinical Relevance and Laboratory Detection

Abstract

Failure to respond to antifungal therapy could be due to in vitro resistance (intrinsic or developed during therapy) or clinical resistance. In vitro resistance is mostly due to genetic mutations (resistance mechanisms), and it is associated with high minimal inhibitory concentrations (MICs), minimal effective concentrations (MECs), and/or clinical failure. Clinical breakpoints (CBPs) and/or epidemiologic cutoff values (ECVs) are useful to detect the in vitro antifungal resistance when isolates are tested by standardized methods. ECVs are available from the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) for Candida spp. versus echinocandins (anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin) and triazoles (fluconazole, posaconazole, and voriconazole). Lately, the CLSI has adjusted to species-specific CBPs for Candida spp. versus fluconazole, similar to those of the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST), and versus echinocandins. However, the available voriconazole EUCAST and CLSI CBPs differ. In the absence of CBPs, EUCAST and CLSI assigned ECVs for various Aspergillus spp. and triazoles. This article reviews emerging resistance, laboratory detection, and clinical relevance as reported in the literature in the past 3 to 4 years.