Journals / Cyprus Journal of Medical Sciences / 2021 / Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 2

Bloodstream Yeast Species and In Vitro Antifungal Susceptibility Profiles

Pages
117–123
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

CONCLUSION Identifying the isolated species and determining their susceptibility pattern are essential to alert physicians to infections with rare and uncommon fungal species to optimize the antifungal therapy.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:BACKGROUND/AIMS Bloodstream yeast infections have increased substantially in many countries worldwide and pose a significant threat.
📊
Key Findings & Data:MATERIAL and METHODS A total of 52 yeast isolates were collected from the microbiology laboratory of the University Hospital.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:CONCLUSION Identifying the isolated species and determining their susceptibility pattern are essential to alert physicians to infections with rare and uncommon fungal species to optimize the antifungal therapy.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

BACKGROUND/AIMS Bloodstream yeast infections have increased substantially in many countries worldwide and pose a significant threat. This study investigated the distribution of bloodstream yeast species and determined the antifungal susceptibility profiles. MATERIAL and METHODS A total of 52 yeast isolates were collected from the microbiology laboratory of the University Hospital. These isolates were collected from blood specimens that were submitted for culture test from in-patients, who have high body temperature. Of these isolates, 41 isolates of Candida spp. were identified using Brilliance Candida Agar, germ tube test, and tested for the chitin synthase 1 (CHS1) gene. Selected isolates were tested against seven antifungal agents by disk diffusion method, and the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) was determined by MIC Test Strips for the mutidrug resistant isolates. The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board. RESULTS Candida albicans accounted for 52%, C. glabrata (26.9%), C. krusei (9.6%), and C. tropicalis (6.7%). The newly emerging yeasts included C. parapsilosis, C. zeylanoides, C. apicola, Blastoschizomyces capitatus, Cryptococcus neoformans, Kluyveromyces, and Rhodotorula mucilaginosa. Most Candida species were highly susceptible to amphotericin B and caspofungin. Between 38 and 69% of C. albicans, isolates were resistant to the azoles. The non-Candida albicans (NCA) species showed different susceptibility patterns. Anidulafungin had the lowest MIC90 at 0.047 mg/mL. The CHS1 gene was detected in C. albicans and in three NCA spp. CONCLUSION Identifying the isolated species and determining their susceptibility pattern are essential to alert physicians to infections with rare and uncommon fungal species to optimize the antifungal therapy.

🔖

Cite This Article

NİMRİ, L. F., KAPLAN, N. M., ISHAQ, R. I. (2021). Bloodstream Yeast Species and In Vitro Antifungal Susceptibility Profiles. Cyprus Journal of Medical Sciences, Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 2, 117–123. https://ajindex.com/articles/418164

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Moyes DL, Richardson JP, Naglik JR. Candida albicans-epithelial interactions and pathogenicity mechanisms: Scratching the surface. Virulenc. 2015
  2. 6(4):338-346. [CrossRef] 2. Sardi JC, Scorzoni L, Bernardi T, Fusco-Almeida AM, Mendes Giannini MJ. Candida species: Current epidemiology, pathogenicity, biofilm formation, natural antifungal products and new therapeutic options. J Med Microbiol. 2013
  3. 62(1):10-24. [CrossRef] 3. Pfaller MA, Diekema DJ. Epidemiology of invasive mycoses in North America. Crit Rev Microbiol. 2010
  4. 36(1):1-353. [CrossRef] 4. Papon N, Courdavault V, Clastre M, Bennett RJ. Emerging and emerged pathogenic Candida species: Beyond the Candida albicans paradigm. PLOS Pathogens. 2013
  5. e1003550. [CrossRef] 5. Sanguinetti M, Posteraro B, Lass-Flo¨rl C. Antifungal drug resistance among Candida species: Mechanisms and clinical impact. Mycoses. 2015
  6. 58(S2):2-13. [CrossRef] 6. Elorza MV, Sentandreu R, Ruiz-Herrera J. Isolation and characterization of yeast monomorphic mutants of Candida albicans. J Bacteriol. 1994
  7. 176(8):2318-2325. [CrossRef] 7. Chen-Wu JL, Zwicker J, Bowen AR, Robbins PW. Expression of chitin synthase genes during yeast and hyphal growth phases of Candida albicans. Mol Microbiol. 1992
  8. 6(4):497-502. [CrossRef] 8. Lenardon MD, Munro CA, Gow NA. Chitin synthesis and fungal pathogenesis. Curr Opin Microbiol. 2010
  9. 13(4):416-423. [CrossRef] 9. Lee KH, Shin WS, Kim D, Koh CM. The presumptive identification of Candida albicans with germ tube induced by high temperature. Yonsei Med J. 1999
  10. 40(5):420-424. [CrossRef] 10. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute.Method for Antifungal Disk Diffusion Susceptibility Testing of Yeasts
  11. Approved Guideline. 2nd ed., M44-A2.Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, 2009. 11. Jordan JA. PCR identification of four medically important Candida species by using a single primer pair. J Clin Microbiol. 1994
  12. 32(12):2962-2967. [CrossRef] 12. Nguyen MH, Clancy CJ, Yu VL. Do in vitro susceptibility data predict the microbiologic response to amphotericin B? Results of a prospective study of patients with Candida fungemia. Infect Dis. 1998
  13. 177(2):425-430. [CrossRef] 13. Carrillo-Munoz AJ, Tur-Tur C, Hernandaz-Molina JM, et al. Antifungal activity of posaconazole against Candida spp. and non- Candida clinical yeasts isolates. Rev Esp Quimioter. 2010
  14. Pfaller MA, Messer SA, Karlsson A, Bolmstro¨m A. Evaluation of the Etest method for determining fluconazole susceptibilities of 4