A N T I M I C R O B I A L R E S I S TA N C E INVITED ARTICLE

George M. Eliopoulos, Section Editor

Resistance to Antifungal Agents: Mechanisms

and Clinical Impact
Zeina A. Kanafani1 and John R. Perfect2
1
American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut, Lebanon; and 2Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina

Despite advances in preventive, diagnostic, and therapeutic interventions, invasive fungal infections cause significant morbidity
and mortality in immunocompromised patients. The burden of antifungal resistance in such high-risk patients is becoming
a major concern. A better understanding of the mechanisms and clinical impact of antifungal resistance is essential to the
prompt and efficient treatment of patients with invasive mycoses and to improving the outcome of such infections. Although
recent guidelines have attempted to standardize antifungal susceptibility testing, limitations still exist as a result of the
incomplete correlation between in vitro susceptibility and clinical response to treatment. Four major mechanisms of resistance
to azoles have been identified, all of which rely on altered gene expression. Mechanisms responsible for polyene and echin-
ocandin resistance are less well understood. In addition to discussing the molecular mechanisms of antifungal resistance,
this article elaborates on the concept of clinical resistance, which is critical to the understanding of treatment failure in
patients with invasive fungal infections.

Invasive fungal infections constitute a significant burden in
patients with impaired immunity [1, 2]. The spectrum of fungal
pathogens causing infections in immunocompromised hosts is
growing [3]. However, the available therapeutic options are
limited, particularly for pathogens that are resistant to 1 class
of antifungals (table 1) [424].
We review the molecular mechanisms that underlie in vitro
resistance of yeasts and molds to various classes of antifungals.
We also discuss the causes and implications of clinical anti-
fungal resistance and offer directives regarding the optimal ap-
proach to treatment failure in fungal infections.
DEFINITIONS
Microbiological resistance refers to nonsusceptibility of a fun-
gus to an antifungal agent by in vitro susceptibility testing, in
which the MIC of the drug exceeds the susceptibility breakpoint
for that organism. Microbiological resistance can be primary
(intrinsic) or secondary (acquired). Primary resistance is found
naturally among certain fungi without prior exposure to the
drug and emphasizes the importance of identification of fungal
species from clinical specimens. Examples include resistance of
Candida krusei to fluconazole and of Cryptococcus neoformans
to echinocandins. Secondary resistance develops among pre-
viously susceptible strains after exposure to the antifungal agent
and is usually dependent on altered gene expression. The de-
velopment of fluconazole resistance among Candida albicans
and C. neoformans strains illustrates this type of resistance [25,
26].
Clinical resistance is defined as the failure to eradicate a
fungal infection despite the administration of an antifungal
agent with in vitro activity against the organism. Such failures
can be attributed to a combination of factors related to the
host, the antifungal agent, or the pathogen. Although clinical
resistance cannot always be predicted, it highlights the impor-
tance of individualizing treatment strategies on the basis of the
clinical situation.

ANTIFUNGAL SUSCEPTIBILITY TESTING

Received 19 June 2007; accepted 18 August 2007; electronically published 19 November
2007. Until recently, the techniques for antifungal susceptibility test-
Reprints or correspondence: Dr. Zeina A. Kanafani, Div. of Infectious Diseases, American
University of Beirut Medical Center, Cairo St., PO Box 113-6044, Hamra 110 32090, Beirut,
ing were not standardized. The Clinical and Laboratory Stan-
Lebanon (zk10@aub.edu.lb). dards Institute published reference methods for susceptibility
Clinical Infectious Diseases 2008; 46:1208 testing of yeasts [27] and filamentous fungi [28]. These guide-
 2007 by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved.
1058-4838/2008/4601-0022$15.00
lines have created a standard for comparison of clinical data.
DOI: 10.1086/524071 The European Committee on Antibiotic Susceptibility Testing

120 CID 2008:46 (1 January) ANTIMICROBIAL RESISTANCE

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/cid/article-abstract/46/1/120/335857/Resistance-to-Antifungal-Agents-Mechanisms-and

by guest
on 12 October 2017
 Table 1. Antifungal drug susceptibility of selected drug-resistant fungi.

CAS,
minimal effective
concentration range
MIC range, mg/mL (no. of isolates)
in mg/mL
Species ICZ VCZ PCZ AMB (no. of isolates)
Aspergillus lentulus 0.51 (8) 12 (8) NA 12 (8) 216 (8)
Aspergillus ustus 1 to 18 (10) 48 (10) 2 (1) 0.258 (10) 28 (8)
Aspergillus terreus 0.038 (63) 0.254 (63) 0.060.25 (8) 0.1216 (63) 0.060.5 (13)
Scedosporium apiospermum 0.032 (30) 0.03 to 0.5 (30) 0.1251 (13) 0.5 to 116 (30) 0.254 (11)
Scedosporium prolificans 2 to 132 (55) 0.58 (55) 2 to 18 (55) 1 to 116 (55) 48 (2)
Fusarium solani 8 (15) 14 (10) 18 (6) 0.258 (15) 8 (29)
Paecilomyces lilacinus 1 to 18 (3) 0.21 (3) 0.120.5 (3) 18 (3) 3 to 1100 (5)
Scopulariopsis brevicaulis 18 (25) 18 (25) 18 (25) 8 to 116 (25) 4 to 116 (25)
Zygomycetes 0.0332 (51) 264 (51) 0.062 (36) 0.032 (51) 116 (15)
Trichosporon asahii 0.038 (15) 0.0158 (15) 0.121 (5) 0.516 (15) 116 (9)
Geotrichum capitatum 0.030.5 (23) 0.030.5 (23) NA 0.060.25 (23) 0.5 (1)
Cladophialophora bantiana 0.03 to 0.25 (10) 0.03 to 1 (10) !0.03 to 0.06 (5) 0.250.5 (10) 28 (5)

NOTE. Data are compiled from [424]. AMB, amphotericin B; CAS, caspofungin; ICZ, itraconazole; NA, not available; PCZ, posaconazole; VCZ, voriconazole.

has also published guidelines for testing Candida and Aspergillus
isolates [2931]. However, clinicians are still faced with the
challenge of how to interpret the results of in vitro antifungal
susceptibility testing. MIC values do not always directly asso-
ciate with response to antifungal therapy [32]. Although in vitro
resistance predicts treatment failure in patients with HIV in-
fection with oropharyngeal or esophageal candidiasis [33], no
such correlation has been replicated in other settings [34]. The
discordance between in vivo and in vitro data is illustrated by
the 9060 rule, which maintains that infections due to sus-
ceptible strains respond to appropriate therapy in 90% of
cases, whereas infections due to resistant strains respond in
60% of cases [32].
Another limitation of MIC determination is that MIC levels
are not always the most optimal measure of resistance. Some
reports have suggested that the minimum effective concentra-
tion, defined as the drug concentration at which morphological
alterations of hyphal cells are detected, might be a more ap-
propriate end point than MIC for testing the susceptibility of
filamentous fungi to echinocandins [35]. Furthermore, with
mold infections, antifungal exposure detects activity against
conidia rather than activity against the more clinically relevant
hyphal structures.
RESISTANCE TO AZOLE COMPOUNDS
Mechanism of Action of Azoles
Azoles exert their action by inhibiting the C14a demethylation
of lanosterol in fungi, which interferes with the synthesis of
ergosterol in the fungal cell membrane. Azoles differ in their
affinities to their target, which may account for differences in
their spectrum of activity (i.e., in the primary resistance profiles
of various fungi) [36]. In addition, variations in the structure
of azoles are thought to be responsible for the cross-resistance
patterns among Candida species [3741]. For example, al-
though complete cross-resistance between the triazoles has been
observed with Candida glabrata, no such pattern exists with C.
krusei [42].
Epidemiology of Azole Resistance
Prior to the introduction of antiretroviral therapy, there was
an increase in the prevalence of fluconazole-resistant C. albicans
among HIV-infected patients with oropharyngeal or esophageal
candidiasis. Widespread use of itraconazole and fluconazole is
thought to have been the major driver of azole resistance [43].
Up to one-third of patients with advanced AIDS in one study
harbored fluconazole-resistant C. albicans in their oral cavities
[44]. Azole-resistant C. albicans is less common among patients
with other diseases, such as vaginal candidiasis [45] and can-
didemia [46]. In general, the rates of azole resistance among
the most commonly encountered invasive Candida species re-
main low, with reported rates of 1.0%2.1% in C. albicans,
0.4%4.2% in Candida parapsilosis, and 1.4%6.6% in Candida
tropicalis [47, 48]. A clear exception is C. glabrata, which is
second to C. albicans in causing systemic fungal infections in
the United States [47]. According to data from the ARTEMIS
Global Antifungal Surveillance Program, the incidence of flu-
conazole resistance in C. glabrata increased from 7% in 2001
to 12% in 2004 [49]. In addition to the changing trends in
antifungal susceptibility, there has been a recent shift towards
more infections in the immunocompromised host being caused
by Candida species other than C. albicans [50, 51]. Several
studies have initially incriminated the environmental pressure

ANTIMICROBIAL RESISTANCE CID 2008:46 (1 January) 121

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/cid/article-abstract/46/1/120/335857/Resistance-to-Antifungal-Agents-Mechanisms-and

by guest
on 12 October 2017
 imposed by exposure to fluconazole [52, 53]. However, such a
temporal association has not been consistently demonstrated
[54, 55]. Other factors, such as exposure to antibacterial agents,
immunosuppressive therapy, and the underlying medical con-
dition of the host, might prove to be better predictors of the
distribution of Candida species than fluconazole use [56, 57].
Mechanisms of Azole Resistance
Four major mechanisms of resistance to azoles have been de-
scribed in Candida species. More than 1 mechanism can be
functioning in any given fungal strain with additive effects.
Decreased drug concentration. The development of active
efflux pumps results in decreased drug concentrations at the
site of action. Efflux pumps are encoded in Candida species by
2 gene families of transporters: the CDR genes of the ATP-
binding cassette super family, and the MDR genes of the major
facilitators class [58, 59]. Up regulation of CDR1, CDR2, and
MDR1 has been demonstrated in azole-resistant C. albicans [60,
61]. Other transporter genes have been detected in other Can-
dida species, such as CgCDR1 and PDH1 in C. glabrata and
CdCDR1 and CdMDR1 in Candida dubliniensis [62]. Whereas
CDR gene up-regulation confers resistance to almost all azoles,
MDR-encoded efflux pumps have a narrower spectrum specific
for fluconazole.
Target site alteration. It has been demonstrated that mu-
tations in ERG11, the gene encoding for the target enzyme
lanosterol C14a-demethylase, prevents binding of azoles to the
enzymatic site [63]. Furthermore, intrinsic resistance to flu-
conazole in C. krusei isolates has been attributed to decreased
affinity of ERG11p to the drug [64]. In excess of 80 amino
acid substitutions in ERG11p have been detected [65]. Different
mutations can coexist in the same gene with additive effects.
Up-regulation of target enzyme. Some Candida isolates
with reduced susceptibility to azoles have higher intracellular
concentrations of ERG11p than do azole-susceptible strains
[66]. The antifungal agent is, therefore, overwhelmed, and rou-
tine therapeutic concentrations can no longer effectively inhibit
ergosterol synthesis. Target enzyme up-regulation can be
achieved through gene amplification, increased transcription
rate, or decreased degradation of the gene product. However,
this mechanism is thought to contribute little to the overall
resistance burden in Candida species, because only modest in-
creases in enzyme levels have been described.
Development of bypass pathways. Exposure to azole com-
pounds results in depletion of ergosterol from the fungal
membrane and accumulation of the toxic product 14a-methyl-
3,6-diol, leading to growth arrest. Mutation of the ERG3 gene
prevents the formation of 14a-methyl-3,6-diol from 14a-meth-
ylfecosterol [67]. Replacement of ergosterol with the latter
product leads to functional membranes and negates the action
of azoles on the ergosterol biosynthetic pathway. Candida
122 CID 2008:46 (1 January) ANTIMICROBIAL RESISTANCE
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/cid/article-abstract/46/1/120/335857/Resistance-to-Antifungal-Agents-Mechanisms-and
by guest
on 12 October 2017
strains with ERG3 mutation are also resistant to polyenes, be-
cause their cell membranes are devoid of ergosterol.
Although uncommon (with the exception of fluconazole),
resistance to azole compounds among Aspergillus species is
well-recognized. The first resistance mechanism described is
through reduced intracellular concentration of itraconazole
caused by expression of efflux pumps [68]. The second and
more prevalent mechanism relies on modification of the 14a-
sterol demethylase enzyme, which is encoded by the cyp51A
and cyp51B genes [69, 70]. In particular, amino acid substi-
tutions at the M220 position are associated with a resistance
phenotype with elevated MICs to all azoles, whereas substi-
tutions at G54 result in cross-resistance to itraconazole and
posaconazole. Recently, a new mechanism of azole resistance
in Aspergillus fumigatus has been described, where mutations
in the promoter region of cyp51A lead to overexpression of the
protein product [71]. Continued surveillance for azole resis-
tance and the magnitude of cross-resistance between azoles
among Aspergillus species is warranted, especially with the in-
creasing use of new-generation azoles for the prevention and
treatment of invasive aspergillosis.
It should be additionally noted that the activity of azoles
against emerging fungal pathogens, such as zygomycetes and
Fusarium and Scedosporium species, is variable. Although flu-
conazole consistently lacks activity against these organisms,
new-generation azoles possess variable activity, highlighting the
importance of relying on susceptibility testing to guide directed
antifungal therapy.
RESISTANCE TO POLYENES
Mechanism of action of polyenes. Polyenes (amphotericin B
deoxycholate and its lipid-associated formulations) act by in-
serting into the fungal membrane in close association with
ergosterol. The subsequent formation of porin channels leads
to loss of transmembrane potential and impaired cellular
function.
Epidemiology of polyene resistance. Although resistance to
amphotericin B among Candida strains remains rare [72], there
have been recent reports of increasing MICs to amphotericin
B among C. krusei and C. glabrata isolates [73]. In addition,
intrinsic polyene resistance is frequently noted in Candida lu-
sitaniae [74] and Trichosporon beigelii [75]. However, identi-
fication of polyene-resistant isolates has been difficult to re-
produce [76, 77]. Filamentous fungi are more likely than yeasts
to have reduced susceptibility to polyenes. Among Aspergillus
species, Aspergillus terreus is generally resistant to amphotericin
B [78]. Polyene resistance is increasingly encountered in other
Aspergillus species, such as Aspergillus flavus and even A. fu-
migatus, which traditionally exhibits the highest susceptibility
to amphotericin B [78, 79]. According to the SENTRY program,
the prevalence of polyene resistance among Aspergillus species
 has increased remarkably, with only 11.5% of A. fumigatus
isolates inhibited at 1 mg/mL [79]. However, large longitu-
dinal studies are lacking. In addition, rare Aspergillus species,
such as Aspergillus ustus or Aspergillus lentulus, which are rel-
atively resistant to most antifungal agents, have been reported
to cause invasive disease [17, 80]. Other molds, such as Sce-
dosporium apiospermum, Scedosporium prolificans, and Fusar-
ium species, are typically resistant to amphotericin B [78].
Mechanisms of polyene resistance. Resistance breakpoints
for polyenes have not been determined. Most clinicians use an
MIC of 1.0 mg/mL to indicate resistance to amphotericin B.
Defects in the ERG3 gene involved in erogosterol biosynthesis
lead to accumulation of other sterols in the fungal membrance.
Consequently, polyene-resistant Candida and Cryptococcus iso-
lates have relatively low ergosterol content, compared with that
of polyene-susceptible isolates [81]. Resistance to amphotericin
B may also be mediated by increased catalase activity, with
decreasing susceptibility to oxidative damage [82].
RESISTANCE TO ECHINOCANDINS
Echinocandins inhibit the synthesis of b-1,3-D glucan, which
is integral to the structure and function of the fungal cell wall.
The formation of a defective cell wall leads to cell rupture in
yeasts and aberrant hyphal growth in molds. Echinocandins are
highly effective against Candida and Aspergillus species, but they
have no activity against zygomycetes or against Cryptococcus,
Trichosporon, Scedosporium, and Fusarium species [12]. Among
the Candida species, C. parapsilosis and Candida guilliermondii
isolates have higher MIC values than do C. albicans isolates,
although the clinical significance of this reduced in vitro sus-
ceptibility has been debated [83]. Nonetheless, breakthrough
infections with C. parapsilosis have been reported in patients
receiving echinocandins for other indications [84]. Of note,
optimal detection of echinocandin resistance requires variation
from the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute meth-
odology [85].
The mechanisms of echinocandin resistance are still being
investigated. In Candida species, secondary resistance is as-
sociated with point mutations in the Fks1 gene of the b-1,3-
D-glucan synhase complex [86]. Within Fks1 lies a highly
conserved region where several mutations have been identi-
fied, mostly at the Ser645 position. On the other hand, the
mechanism of resistance in C. neoformans is not completely
understood. Possibilities include an echinocandin-resistant b-
1,3-D-glucan synthase target, efflux pumps, and degradation
pathways [87].
It has been observed that echinocandin-susceptible Candida
and Aspergillus isolates have the ability to grow in vitro at
concentrations exceeding the MICs of caspofungin [88]. This
paradoxical phenomenon, which is referred to as the eagle
effect, is strain-dependent and has been related to up-regu-
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/cid/article-abstract/46/1/120/335857/Resistance-to-Antifungal-Agents-Mechanisms-and
by guest
on 12 October 2017
lation of chitin synthesis in the fungal cell wall [89]. However,
its in vivo consequences have not been fully determined, and
the highest treatment doses of echinocandins have not yet
shown this phenomenon in humans [90].
The burden of echinocandin resistance is still poorly appre-
ciated. There have been recent reports of echinocandin resis-
tance in patients with Candida infections (due to C. albicans,
C. glabrata, C. krusei, and C. parapsilosis) [9194]. Infections
ranged from esophageal candidiasis to prosthetic valve endo-
carditis. In all of the described cases, resistance to echinocandins
developed during therapy and was associated with treatment
failure. Resistance mechanisms other than Fks1 mutations were
involved in some cases [94].
RESISTANCE TO FLUCYTOSINE
Flucytosine is a base pyrimidine analog that inhibits cellular
DNA and RNA synthesis. Some yeast strains are intrinsically
resistant to flucytosine because of impaired cellular uptake sec-
ondary to a mutation in cytosine permease. On the other hand,
acquired resistance results from defects in flucytosine metab-
olism through mutations in cytosine deaminase or uracil phos-
phoribosyl transferase. The prevalence of primary resistance to
flucytosine remains low (1%2% among Candida isolates [53]
and !2% among C. neoformans isolates [95]). However, the
speed at which these yeasts can develop resistance to flucytosine
has prompted clinicians to use flucytosine only in combination
with other antifungal agents, mainly amphotericin B [96].
CLINICAL RESISTANCE
Recent therapeutic trials in invasive mycoses have found that
overall (empirical and directed) treatment success rates have
ranged from 32% to 74% [83, 97, 98], indicating that in vitro
susceptibility testing alone is not sufficient to predict clinical
success. The majority of patients with invasive mycoses expe-
rience treatment failure because of clinical resistance, which is
a concept critical to the outcome of a fungal infection. Clinical
resistance can occur under several circumstances (table 2).
First, an incorrect diagnosis can be categorized into 2 areas:
(1) with the use of empirical and preemptive strategies, treat-
ment failure may relate to another diagnosis or multiple path-
ogens; (2) in patients receiving cytotoxic therapy, monoclonal
antibodies, antiretroviral therapy, and other immune mod-
ulating therapies, the immune reconstitution inflammatory
syndrome can dominate the clinical response to antifungal
therapy. Because it is associated with prominent signs and
symptoms of inflammation, immune reconstitution inflam-
matory syndrome can be confused with failure to control
fungal growth [99].
Second, the net state of immunosuppression is often so neg-
ative that antifungals cannot overcome the severe immuno-
deficiencies [100]. For instance, marrow failure and prolonged
ANTIMICROBIAL RESISTANCE CID 2008:46 (1 January) 123
 Table 2. Principal factors determining antifungal clinical resistance.

Factor
Wrong diagnosis
Net state of immunosuppression
High burden of fungus at initiation of treatment
Strain acquisition of increased virulence
Pharmacokinetics and/or pharmacodynamics
Site of infection
Length of treatment and/or compliance
Underlying disease
Implication
Weak diagnostics and/or IRIS
Improvement in immunity of host is essential
Earlier treatment intervention improves outcome
Probably less of a problem than host factors but can be measured
Drug toxicity, drugdrug interaction, drug levels
Drug penetration, tissue necrosis, foreign body
Precision is not certain; patient and clinician may lose focus on
long-term drug administration
Final arbitrator in most invasive mycoses

NOTE. IRIS, immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome.

neutropenia are difficult to overcome in the treatment of in-
vasive aspergillosis, and specific immune modulators have not
been convincingly shown to improve host immunity [101, 102].
Third, recent data support that early treatment of fungal
infection with a lower burden of organisms reduces the number
of treatment failures [103105]. In some patients, the burden
of the fungus is too great for antifungals to help recovery.
Fourth, some fungal strains have been found to possess more
virulent characteristics than other strains, and infection with
such strains might lead to worse prognosis. For example, an
outbreak of Cryptococcus gattii infections in Vancouver, Canada,
was linked to the creation of a more virulent cryptococcal strain
through a recombination event in nature [106]. Most patients
were immunocompetent individuals who resided in or had
recently traveled to Vancouver [107]. In contrast, infections
with the relatively less virulent C. parapsilosis can be often
successfully treated with echinocandins despite reduced in vitro
susceptibility [108].
Fifth, when using a polypharmacy approach to care, toxicities
from polyenes (nephrotoxcitiy) and azoles (hepatitis) can be a
cause of treatment failure [83, 97]. Furthermore, drug-drug
interactions can contribute to morbidity and mortality [109,
110]. High flucytosine levels have always been a cause for con-
cern regarding toxicity. As for azole compounds, the increasing
use of serum drug levels has begun to emphasize the correlation
between direct drug exposure and outcome [111114]. For
instance, a drug-resistant infection could result from poor drug
absorption or genetic differences in the metabolism of anti-
fungals. Therefore, it is important to be cognizant of the im-
portance of adequate dosing, especially in the less-studied pe-
diatric population.
Sixth, the site of infection can have a major influence on
drug resistance. For example, the good penetration of flucon-
azole into the CSF (170% of serum concentration [115]) makes
it a better choice for treating meningitis than itraconazole (the
rate of recrudescence among patients with cryptococcal men-
ingitis after initial response to itraconazole is 20% [116]). Vor-
iconazole, with its antifungal activity and CNS penetration, has
become a first-line choice for certain CNS mold infections
[117]. When the site of infection is necrotic with poor blood
supply, a debulking surgery is essential to overcome antifungal
treatment resistance [118]. Finally, the ability of fungi to form
biofilms on foreign bodies is a primary reason for clinical fail-
ure. The echinocandins and lipid formulations of amphotericin
B can impact fungal growth in biofilms better than ampho-
tericin B and azoles [119]. However, numerous trials involving
candidemia have shown that treatment failure and mortality
are high among patients with catheter-related infections with-
out removal of the catheter [120122].
Seventh, a suboptimal length of treatment often predicts fail-
ure. Rigorously studied appropriate lengths of therapy are lack-
ing for most mycoses. Moreover, compliance is a potential
problem for success with prolonged courses of therapy.
Finally, the biggest obstruction to success is the underlying
disease, which is the barometer that measures clinical success
and failure. It is necessary to either prevent fungal infections
in high-risk patients or successfully control the underlying dis-
ease when mycoses occur.
CONCLUSIONS
Antifungal drug resistance is a prominent feature in the man-
agement of invasive mycoses, and its epidemiological charac-
teristics continue to evolve. Fortunately, unlike bacteria, there
are no described drug resistance plasmids or transposons to
amplify antifungal resistance. A principal factor in patients with
serious underlying diseases is clinical resistance. This term
covers less mechanistic understandings but can lead to an un-
favorable outcome, and clinicians must approach patients who
are experiencing treatment failure with the 8 factors of clinical
resistance in mind.
Acknowledgments
Potential conflicts of interest. J.R.P. has received research grants and
honoraria from and has consulted for Merck, Enzon, Astellas, Schering-
Plough, and Pfizer. Z.A.K.: no conflicts.

124 CID 2008:46 (1 January) ANTIMICROBIAL RESISTANCE

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/cid/article-abstract/46/1/120/335857/Resistance-to-Antifungal-Agents-Mechanisms-and

by guest
on 12 October 2017
 References
1. Pagano L, Caira M, Candoni A, et al. The epidemiology of fungal
infections in patients with hematologic malignancies: the SEIFEM-
2004 study. Haematologica 2006; 91:106875.
2. Sanz Alonso MA, Jarque Ramos I, Salavert Lleti M, Peman J. Epi-
demiology of invasive fungal infections due to Aspergillus spp. and
Zygomycetes. Clin Microbiol Infect 2006; 12(Suppl 7):26.
3. Maschmeyer G. The changing epidemiology of invasive fungal infec-
tions: new threats. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2006; 27(Suppl 1):36.
4. Araujo R, Pina-Vaz C, Rodrigues AG. Susceptibility of environmental
versus clinical strains of pathogenic Aspergillus. Int J Antimicrob
Agents 2007; 29:10811.
5. Balajee SA, Nickle D, Varga J, Marr KA. Molecular studies reveal
frequent misidentification of Aspergillus fumigatus by morphotyping.
Eukaryot Cell 2006; 5:170512.
6. Christakis G, Perlorentzou S, Aslanidou M, Megalakaki A, Velegraki
A. Fatal Blastoschizomyces capitatus sepsis in a neutropenic patient
with acute myeloid leukemia: first documented case from Greece.
Mycoses 2005; 48:21620.
7. Dannaoui E, Meletiadis J, Mouton JW, Meis JF, Verweij PE. In vitro
susceptibilities of zygomycetes to conventional and new antifungals.
J Antimicrob Chemother 2003; 51:4552.
8. Del Poeta M, Schell WA, Perfect JR. In vitro antifungal activity of
pneumocandin L-743,872 against a variety of clinically important
molds. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1997; 41:18356.
9. Di Bonaventura G, Pompilio A, Picciani C, Iezzi M, DAntonio D,
Piccolomini R. Biofilm formation by the emerging fungal pathogen
Trichosporon asahii: development, architecture, and antifungal resis-
tance. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2006; 50:326976.
10. Espinel-Ingroff A. Comparison of in vitro activities of the new triazole
SCH56592 and the echinocandins MK-0991 (L-743,872) and
LY303366 against opportunistic filamentous and dimorphic fungi and
yeasts. J Clin Microbiol 1998; 36:29506.
11. Espinel-Ingroff A, Chaturvedi V, Fothergill A, Rinaldi MG. Optimal
testing conditions for determining MICs and minimum fungicidal
concentrations of new and established antifungal agents for uncom-
mon molds: NCCLS collaborative study. J Clin Microbiol 2002; 40:
377681.
12. Espinel-Ingroff A. In vitro antifungal activities of anidulafungin and
micafungin, licensed agents and the investigational triazole posacon-
azole as determined by NCCLS methods for 12,052 fungal isolates:
review of the literature. Rev Iberoam Micol 2003; 20:12136.
13. Girmenia C, Pizzarelli G, DAntonio D, Cristini F, Martino P. In vitro
susceptibility testing of Geotrichum capitatum: comparison of the E-
test, disk diffusion, and sensititre colorimetric methods with the
NCCLS M27-A2 broth microdilution reference method. Antimicrob
Agents Chemother 2003; 47:39858.
14. Gomez-Lopez A, Garcia-Effron G, Mellado E, Monzon A, Rodriguez-
Tudela JL, Cuenca-Estrella M. In vitro activities of three licensed
antifungal agents against spanish clinical isolates of Aspergillus spp.
Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2003; 47:30858.
15. Johnson EM, Szekely A, Warnock DW. In-vitro activity of voricon-
azole, itraconazole and amphotericin B against filamentous fungi. J
Antimicrob Chemother 1998; 42:7415.
16. Meletiadis J, Meis JF, Mouton JW, Rodriquez-Tudela JL, Donnelly JP,
Verweij PE. In vitro activities of new and conventional antifungal
agents against clinical Scedosporium isolates. Antimicrob Agents Che-
mother 2002; 46:628.
17. Panackal AA, Imhof A, Hanley EW, Marr KA. Aspergillus ustus in-
fections among transplant recipients. Emerg Infect Dis 2006; 12:4038.
18. 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; 30:2515.
19. Pfaller MA, Messer SA, Hollis RJ, Jones RN. Antifungal activities of
posaconazole, ravuconazole, and voriconazole compared to those of
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/cid/article-abstract/46/1/120/335857/Resistance-to-Antifungal-Agents-Mechanisms-and
by guest
on 12 October 2017
itraconazole and amphotericin B against 239 clinical isolates of As-
pergillus spp. and other filamentous fungi: report from SENTRY An-
timicrobial Surveillance Program, 2000. Antimicrob Agents Chemo-
ther 2002; 46:10327.
20. Rodriguez-Tudela JL, Diaz-Guerra TM, Mellado E, et al. Susceptibility
patterns and molecular identification of Trichosporon species. Anti-
microb Agents Chemother 2005; 49:402634.
21. Safdar A. Progressive cutaneous hyalohyphomycosis due to Paecilo-
myces lilacinus: rapid response to treatment with caspofungin and
itraconazole. Clin Infect Dis 2002; 34:14157.
22. Singh J, Rimek D, Kappe R. In vitro susceptibility of 15 strains of
zygomycetes to nine antifungal agents as determined by the NCCLS
M38-A microdilution method. Mycoses 2005; 48:24650.
23. Yildiran ST, Mutlu FM, Saracli MA, et al. Fungal endophthalmitis
caused by Aspergillus ustus in a patient following cataract surgery.
Med Mycol 2006; 44:6659.
24. Zeng J, Kamei K, Zheng Y, Nishimura K. Susceptibility of Pseudal-
lescheria boydii and Scedosporium apiospermum to new antifungal
agents. Nippon Ishinkin Gakkai Zasshi 2004; 45:1014.
25. Alves SH, Lopes JO, Costa JM, Klock C. Development of secondary
resistance to fluconazole in Cryptococcus neoformans isolated from a
patient with AIDS. Rev Inst Med Trop Sao Paulo 1997; 39:35961.
26. Marichal P, Koymans L, Willemsens S, et al. Contribution of muta-
tions in the cytochrome P450 14alpha-demethylase (Erg11p, Cyp51p)
to azole resistance in Candida albicans. Microbiology 1999; 145(Pt
10):270113.
27. NCCLS. Reference method for broth dilution antifungal susceptibility
testing of yeasts: approved standard. NCCLS document M27-A2.
Wayne, PA: NCCLS, 2002.
28. NCCLS. Reference method for broth dilution antifungal susceptibility
testing of conidial-forming filamentous fungi: approved standard.
NCCLS M38A. Wayne, PA: NCCLS, 2002.
29. NCCLS. Reference method for antifungal disk diffusion susceptibility
testing of yeasts: approved guideline. NCCLS document M44A.
Wayne, PA: NCCLS, 2004.
30. Chryssanthou E, Cuenca-Estrella M. Comparison of the EUCAST-
AFST broth dilution method with the CLSI reference broth dilution
method (M38A) for susceptibility testing of posaconazole and vor-
iconazole against Aspergillus spp. Clin Microbiol Infect 2006; 12:
9014.
31. Espinel-Ingroff A, Barchiesi F, Cuenca-Estrella M, et al. International
and multicenter comparison of EUCAST and CLSI M27-A2 broth
microdilution methods for testing susceptibilities of Candida spp. to
fluconazole, itraconazole, posaconazole, and voriconazole. J Clin Mi-
crobiol 2005; 43:38849.
32. Rex JH, Pfaller MA. Has antifungal susceptibility testing come of age?
Clin Infect Dis 2002; 35:9829.
33. Walsh TJ, Gonzalez CE, Piscitelli S, et al. Correlation between in vitro
and in vivo antifungal activities in experimental fluconazole-resistant
oropharyngeal and esophageal candidiasis. J Clin Microbiol 2000; 38:
236973.
34. Lionakis MS, Lewis RE, Chamilos G, Kontoyiannis DP. Aspergillus
susceptibility testing in patients with cancer and invasive aspergillosis:
difficulties in establishing correlation between in vitro susceptibility
data and the outcome of initial amphotericin B therapy. Pharma-
cotherapy 2005; 25:117480.
35. Kurtz MB, Heath IB, Marrinan J, Dreikorn S, Onishi J, Douglas C.
Morphological effects of lipopeptides against Aspergillus fumigatus
correlate with activities against (1,3)-beta-D-glucan synthase. Anti-
microb Agents Chemother 1994; 38:14809.
36. Xiao L, Madison V, Chau AS, Loebenberg D, Palermo RE, McNicholas
PM. Three-dimensional models of wild-type and mutated forms of
cytochrome P450 14alpha-sterol demethylases from Aspergillus fu-
migatus and Candida albicans provide insights into posaconazole
binding. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2004; 48:56874.
37. Cuenca-Estrella M, Gomez-Lopez A, Mellado E, Buitrago MJ, Mon-
zon A, Rodriguez-Tudela JL. Head-to-head comparison of the activ-
ANTIMICROBIAL RESISTANCE CID 2008:46 (1 January) 125
 ities of currently available antifungal agents against 3,378 Spanish
clinical isolates of yeasts and filamentous fungi. Antimicrob Agents
Chemother 2006; 50:91721.
38. Nguyen MH, Yu CY. Voriconazole against fluconazole-susceptible and
resistant Candida isolates: in-vitro efficacy compared with that of
itraconazole and ketoconazole. J Antimicrob Chemother 1998; 42:
2536.
39. Pfaller MA, Messer SA, Boyken L, et al. In vitro activities of vori-
conazole, posaconazole, and fluconazole against 4,169 clinical isolates
of Candida spp. and Cryptococcus neoformans collected during 2001
and 2002 in the ARTEMIS global antifungal surveillance program.
Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2004; 48:2015.
40. Pfaller MA, Messer SA, Boyken L, et al. Cross-resistance between
fluconazole and ravuconazole and the use of fluconazole as a surrogate
marker to predict susceptibility and resistance to ravuconazole among
12,796 clinical isolates of Candida spp. J Clin Microbiol 2004; 42:
313741.
41. Pfaller MA, Messer SA, Boyken L, et al. Use of fluconazole as a
surrogate marker to predict susceptibility and resistance to voricon-
azole among 13,338 clinical isolates of Candida spp. tested by Clinical
and Laboratory Standards Instituterecommended broth microdilu-
tion methods. J Clin Microbiol 2007; 45:705.
42. Pfaller MA, Diekema DJ. Azole antifungal drug cross-resistance: re-
sistance mechanisms, epidemiology, and clinical significance. J In-
vasive Fungal Infect 2007; 1:7492.
43. Goldman M, Cloud GA, Smedema M, et al. Does long-term itracon-
azole prophylaxis result in in vitro azole resistance in mucosal Candida
albicans isolates from persons with advanced human immunodefi-
ciency virus infection? The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious
Diseases Mycoses study group. Antimicrob Agents Chemother
2000; 44:15857.
44. Law D, Moore CB, Wardle HM, Ganguli LA, Keaney MG, Denning
DW. High prevalence of antifungal resistance in Candida spp. from
patients with AIDS. J Antimicrob Chemother 1994; 34:65968.
45. Ribeiro MA, Paula CR, John R, Perfect JR, Cox GM. Phenotypic and
genotypic evaluation of fluconazole resistance in vaginal Candida
strains isolated from HIV-infected women from Brazil. Med Mycol
2005; 43:64750.
46. Sanglard D, Odds FC. Resistance of Candida species to antifungal
agents: molecular mechanisms and clinical consequences. Lancet In-
fect Dis 2002; 2:7385.
47. Pfaller MA, Diekema DJ. Twelve years of fluconazole in clinical prac-
tice: global trends in species distribution and fluconazole susceptibility
of bloodstream isolates of Candida. Clin Microbiol Infect 2004;
10(Suppl 1):1123.
48. Pfaller MA, Diekema DJ, Rinaldi MG, et al. Results from the AR-
TEMIS DISK Global Antifungal Surveillance Study: a 6.5-year analysis
of susceptibilities of Candida and other yeast species to fluconazole
and voriconazole by standardized disk diffusion testing. J Clin Mi-
crobiol 2005; 43:584859.
49. Pfaller MA, Diekema DJ, Sheehan DJ. Interpretive breakpoints for
fluconazole and Candida revisited: a blueprint for the future of an-
tifungal susceptibility testing. Clin Microbiol Rev 2006; 19:43547.
50. Hajjeh RA, Sofair AN, Harrison LH, et al. Incidence of bloodstream
infections due to Candida species and in vitro susceptibilities of iso-
lates collected from 1998 to 2000 in a population-based active sur-
veillance program. J Clin Microbiol 2004; 42:151927.
51. Pfaller MA, Diekema DJ. Epidemiology of invasive candidiasis: a per-
sistent public health problem. Clin Microbiol Rev 2007; 20:13363.
52. Abi-Said D, Anaissie E, Uzun O, Raad I, Pinzcowski H, Vartivarian
S. The epidemiology of hematogenous candidiasis caused by different
Candida species. Clin Infect Dis 1997; 24:11228.
53. Price MF, LaRocco MT, Gentry LO. Fluconazole susceptibilities of
Candida species and distribution of species recovered from blood
cultures over a 5-year period. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1994;
38:14224.
54. Baran J Jr, Muckatira B, Khatib R. Candidemia before and during
126 CID 2008:46 (1 January) ANTIMICROBIAL RESISTANCE
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/cid/article-abstract/46/1/120/335857/Resistance-to-Antifungal-Agents-Mechanisms-and
by guest
on 12 October 2017
the fluconazole era: prevalence, type of species and approach to treat-
ment in a tertiary care community hospital. Scand J Infect Dis
2001; 33:1379.
55. Blot S, Janssens R, Claeys G, et al. Effect of fluconazole consumption
on long-term trends in candidal ecology. J Antimicrob Chemother
2006; 58:4747.
56. Lin MY, Carmeli Y, Zumsteg J, et al. Prior antimicrobial therapy and
risk for hospital-acquired Candida glabrata and Candida krusei fun-
gemia: a case-case-control study. Antimicrob Agents Chemother
2005; 49:455560.
57. Malani A, Hmoud J, Chiu L, Carver PL, Bielaczyc A, Kauffman CA.
Candida glabrata fungemia: experience in a tertiary care center. Clin
Infect Dis 2005; 41:97581.
58. Albertson GD, Niimi M, Cannon RD, Jenkinson HF. Multiple efflux
mechanisms are involved in Candida albicans fluconazole resistance.
Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1996; 40:283541.
59. Sanglard D, Ischer F, Monod M, Bille J. Cloning of Candida albicans
genes conferring resistance to azole antifungal agents: characterization
of CDR2, a new multidrug ABC transporter gene. Microbiology
1997; 143(Pt 2):40516.
60. Sanglard D, Kuchler K, Ischer F, Pagani JL, Monod M, Bille J. Mech-
anisms of resistance to azole antifungal agents in Candida albicans
isolates from AIDS patients involve specific multidrug transporters.
Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1995; 39:237886.
61. White TC. Increased mRNA levels of ERG16, CDR, and MDR1 cor-
relate with increases in azole resistance in Candida albicans isolates
from a patient infected with human immunodeficiency virus. Anti-
microb Agents Chemother 1997; 41:14827.
62. Sanglard D, Bille J. Current understanding of the modes of action of
and resistance mechanisms to conventional and emerging antifungal
agents for treatment of Candida infections. In: Calderone RA, ed.
Candida and candidiasis. Washington, DC: ASM Press, 2002:34983.
63. Loffler J, Kelly SL, Hebart H, Schumacher U, Lass-Florl C, Einsele
H. Molecular analysis of cyp51 from fluconazole-resistant Candida
albicans strains. FEMS Microbiol Lett 1997; 151:2638.
64. Orozco AS, Higginbotham LM, Hitchcock CA, et al. Mechanism of
fluconazole resistance in Candida krusei. Antimicrob Agents Che-
mother 1998; 42:26459.
65. Sanglard D, Ischer F, Koymans L, Bille J. Amino acid substitutions
in the cytochrome P-450 lanosterol 14alpha-demethylase (CYP51A1)
from azole-resistant Candida albicans clinical isolates contribute to
resistance to azole antifungal agents. Antimicrob Agents Chemother
1998; 42:24153.
66. Lopez-Ribot JL, McAtee RK, Lee LN, et al. Distinct patterns of gene
expression associated with development of fluconazole resistance in
serial Candida albicans isolates from human immunodeficiency virus-
infected patients with oropharyngeal candidiasis. Antimicrob Agents
Chemother 1998; 42:29327.
67. Kelly SL, Lamb DC, Kelly DE, et al. Resistance to fluconazole and
cross-resistance to amphotericin B in Candida albicans from AIDS
patients caused by defective sterol delta5,6-desaturation. FEBS Lett
1997; 400:802.
68. Slaven JW, Anderson MJ, Sanglard D, et al. Increased expression of
a novel Aspergillus fumigatus ABC transporter gene, atrF, in the pres-
ence of itraconazole in an itraconazole resistant clinical isolate. Fungal
Genet Biol 2002; 36:199206.
69. Mann PA, Parmegiani RM, Wei SQ, et al. Mutations in Aspergillus
fumigatus resulting in reduced susceptibility to posaconazole appear
to be restricted to a single amino acid in the cytochrome P450 14alpha-
demethylase. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2003; 47:57781.
70. Mellado E, Garcia-Effron G, Alcazar-Fuoli L, Cuenca-Estrella M, Rod-
riguez-Tudela JL. Substitutions at methionine 220 in the 14alpha-
sterol demethylase (Cyp51A) of Aspergillus fumigatus are responsible
for resistance in vitro to azole antifungal drugs. Antimicrob Agents
Chemother 2004; 48:274750.
71. Mellado E, Garcia-Effron G, Alcazar-Fuoli L, et al. A new Aspergillus
fumigatus resistance mechanism conferring in vitro cross-resistance
 to azole antifungals involves a combination of cyp51A alterations.
Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2007; 51:1897904.
72. Tortorano AM, Prigitano A, Biraghi E, Viviani MA. The European
Confederation of Medical Mycology (ECMM) survey of candidaemia
in Italy: in vitro susceptibility of 375 Candida albicans isolates and
biofilm production. J Antimicrob Chemother 2005; 56:7779.
73. Pfaller MA, Messer SA, Boyken L, Tendolkar S, Hollis RJ, Diekema
DJ. Geographic variation in the susceptibilities of invasive isolates of
Candida glabrata to seven systemically active antifungal agents: a
global assessment from the ARTEMIS Antifungal Surveillance Pro-
gram conducted in 2001 and 2002. J Clin Microbiol 2004; 42:31426.
74. Pfaller MA, Messer SA, Hollis RJ. Strain delineation and antifungal
susceptibilities of epidemiologically related and unrelated isolates of
Candida lusitaniae. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 1994; 20:12733.
75. Walsh TJ, Melcher GP, Rinaldi MG, et al. Trichosporon beigelii, an
emerging pathogen resistant to amphotericin B. J Clin Microbiol
1990; 28:161622.
76. Rex JH, Cooper CR Jr, Merz WG, Galgiani JN, Anaissie EJ. Detection
of amphotericin Bresistant Candida isolates in a broth-based system.
Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1995; 39:9069.
77. Wanger A, Mills K, Nelson PW, Rex JH. Comparison of Etest and
National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards broth macro-
dilution method for antifungal susceptibility testing: enhanced ability
to detect amphotericin Bresistant Candida isolates. Antimicrob
Agents Chemother 1995; 39:25202.
78. Sabatelli F, Patel R, Mann PA, et al. In vitro activities of posaconazole,
fluconazole, itraconazole, voriconazole, and amphotericin B against
a large collection of clinically important molds and yeasts. Antimicrob
Agents Chemother 2006; 50:200915.
79. Messer SA, Jones RN, Fritsche TR. International surveillance of Can-
dida spp. and Aspergillus spp.: report from the SENTRY Antimicrobial
Surveillance Program (2003). J Clin Microbiol 2006; 44:17827.
80. Balajee SA, Gribskov JL, Hanley E, Nickle D, Marr KA. Aspergillus
lentulus sp. nov., a new sibling species of A. fumigatus. Eukaryot Cell
2005; 4:62532.
81. Dick JD, Merz WG, Saral R. Incidence of polyene-resistant yeasts
recovered from clinical specimens. Antimicrob Agents Chemother
1980; 18:15863.
82. Sokol-Anderson ML, Brajtburg J, Medoff G. Amphotericin Binduced
oxidative damage and killing of Candida albicans. J Infect Dis
1986; 154:7683.
83. Mora-Duarte J, Betts R, Rotstein C, et al. Comparison of caspofungin
and amphotericin B for invasive candidiasis. N Engl J Med 2002; 347:
20209.
84. Cheung C, Guo Y, Gialanella P, Feldmesser M. Development of can-
didemia on caspofungin therapy: a case report. Infection 2006; 34:
3458.
85. 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; 42:347582.
86. Balashov SV, Park S, Perlin DS. Assessing resistance to the echino-
candin antifungal drug caspofungin in Candida albicans by profiling
mutations in FKS1. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2006; 50:205863.
87. Feldmesser M, Kress Y, Mednick A, Casadevall A. The effect of the
echinocandin analogue caspofungin on cell wall glucan synthesis by
Cryptococcus neoformans. J Infect Dis 2000; 182:17915.
88. Stevens DA, Espiritu M, Parmar R. Paradoxical effect of caspofungin:
reduced activity against Candida albicans at high drug concentrations.
Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2004; 48:340711.
89. Stevens DA, Ichinomiya M, Koshi Y, Horiuchi H. Escape of Candida
from caspofungin inhibition at concentrations above the MIC (par-
adoxical effect) accomplished by increased cell wall chitin; evidence
for beta-1,6-glucan synthesis inhibition by caspofungin. Antimicrob
Agents Chemother 2006; 50:31601.
90. Clemons KV, Espiritu M, Parmar R, Stevens DA. Assessment of the
paradoxical effect of caspofungin in therapy of candidiasis. Antimi-
crob Agents Chemother 2006; 50:12937.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/cid/article-abstract/46/1/120/335857/Resistance-to-Antifungal-Agents-Mechanisms-and
by guest
on 12 October 2017
91. Hakki M, Staab JF, Marr KA. Emergence of a Candida krusei isolate
with reduced susceptibility to caspofungin during therapy. Antimicrob
Agents Chemother 2006; 50:25224.
92. Hernandez S, Lopez-Ribot JL, Najvar LK, McCarthy DI, Bocanegra
R, Graybill JR. Caspofungin resistance in Candida albicans: correlating
clinical outcome with laboratory susceptibility testing of three isogenic
isolates serially obtained from a patient with progressive Candida
esophagitis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2004; 48:13823.
93. Laverdiere M, Lalonde RG, Baril JG, Sheppard DC, Park S, Perlin
DS. Progressive loss of echinocandin activity following prolonged use
for treatment of Candida albicans oesophagitis. J Antimicrob Che-
mother 2006; 57:7058.
94. Moudgal V, Little T, Boikov D, Vazquez JA. Multiechinocandin- and
multiazole-resistant Candida parapsilosis isolates serially obtained dur-
ing therapy for prosthetic valve endocarditis. Antimicrob Agents Che-
mother 2005; 49:7679.
95. Brandt ME, Pfaller MA, Hajjeh RA, et al. Trends in antifungal drug
susceptibility of Cryptococcus neoformans isolates in the United States:
1992 to 1994 and 1996 to 1998. Antimicrob Agents Chemother
2001; 45:30659.
96. Hospenthal DR, Bennett JE. Flucytosine monotherapy for crypto-
coccosis. Clin Infect Dis 1998; 27:2604.
97. Herbrecht R, Denning DW, Patterson TF, et al. Voriconazole versus
amphotericin B for primary therapy of invasive aspergillosis. N Engl
J Med 2002; 347:40815.
98. van der Horst CM, Saag MS, Cloud GA, et al. Treatment of cryp-
tococcal meningitis associated with the acquired immunodeficiency
syndrome. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases My-
coses Study Group and AIDS Clinical Trials Group. N Engl J Med
1997; 337:1521.
99. Singh N, Perfect JR. Immune reconstitution syndrome associated with
opportunistic mycoses: risk factors, pathophysiological basis and ap-
proach to management. Lancet Infect Dis 2007; 7:395401.
100. Kontoyiannis DP, Rubin RH. Infection in the organ transplant re-
cipient: an overview. Infect Dis Clin North Am 1995; 9:81122.
101. Nemunaitis J, Shannon-Dorcy K, Appelbaum FR, et al. Long-term
follow-up of patients with invasive fungal disease who received ad-
junctive therapy with recombinant human macrophage colony-stim-
ulating factor. Blood 1993; 82:14227.
102. Pappas PG, Bustamante B, Ticona E, et al. Recombinant interferon-
gamma 1b as adjunctive therapy for AIDS-related acute cryptococcal
meningitis. J Infect Dis 2004; 189:218591.
103. Garey KW, Rege M, Pai MP, et al. Time to initiation of fluconazole
therapy impacts mortality in patients with candidemia: a multi-in-
stitutional study. Clin Infect Dis 2006; 43:2531.
104. Morrell M, Fraser VJ, Kollef MH. Delaying the empiric treatment of
candida bloodstream infection until positive blood culture results are
obtained: a potential risk factor for hospital mortality. Antimicrob
Agents Chemother 2005; 49:36405.
105. Upton A, Kirby KA, Carpenter P, Boeckh M, Marr KA. Invasive
aspergillosis following hematopoietic cell transplantation: outcomes
and prognostic factors associated with mortality. Clin Infect Dis
2007; 44:53140.
106. Fraser JA, Giles SS, Wenink EC, et al. Same-sex mating and the origin
of the Vancouver Island Cryptococcus gattii outbreak. Nature 2005;
437:13604.
107. Hoang LM, Maguire JA, Doyle P, Fyfe M, Roscoe DL. Cryptococcus
neoformans infections at Vancouver Hospital and Health Sciences
Centre (19972002): epidemiology, microbiology and histopathology.
J Med Microbiol 2004; 53:93540.
108. Ostrosky-Zeichner L, Kontoyiannis D, Raffalli J, et al. International,
open-label, noncomparative, clinical trial of micafungin alone and in
combination for treatment of newly diagnosed and refractory can-
didemia. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2005; 24:65461.
109. Andes D. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of antifungals.
Infect Dis Clin North Am 2006; 20:67997.
110. Shakeri-Nejad K, Stahlmann R. Drug interactions during therapy with
ANTIMICROBIAL RESISTANCE CID 2008:46 (1 January) 127
 three major groups of antimicrobial agents. Expert Opin Pharma-
cother 2006; 7:63951.
111. Denning DW, Ribaud P, Milpied N, et al. Efficacy and safety of vor-
iconazole in the treatment of acute invasive aspergillosis. Clin Infect
Dis 2002; 34:56371.
112. Smith J, Safdar N, Knasinski V, et al. Voriconazole therapeutic drug
monitoring. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2006; 50:15702.
113. Trifilio S, Pennick G, Pi J, et al. Monitoring plasma voriconazole levels
may be necessary to avoid subtherapeutic levels in hematopoietic stem
cell transplant recipients. Cancer 2007; 109:15325.
114. Walsh TJ, Raad I, Patterson TF, et al. Treatment of invasive asper-
gillosis with posaconazole in patients who are refractory to or intol-
erant of conventional therapy: an externally controlled trial. Clin In-
fect Dis 2007; 44:212.
115. Mian UK, Mayers M, Garg Y, et al. Comparison of fluconazole phar-
macokinetics in serum, aqueous humor, vitreous humor, and cere-
brospinal fluid following a single dose and at steady state. J Ocul
Pharmacol Ther 1998; 14:45971.
116. Denning DW, Tucker RM, Hanson LH, Hamilton JR, Stevens DA.
Itraconazole therapy for cryptococcal meningitis and cryptococcosis.
Arch Intern Med 1989; 149:23018.
128 CID 2008:46 (1 January) ANTIMICROBIAL RESISTANCE
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/cid/article-abstract/46/1/120/335857/Resistance-to-Antifungal-Agents-Mechanisms-and
by guest
on 12 October 2017
117. Lutsar I, Roffey S, Troke P. Voriconazole concentrations in the cer-
ebrospinal fluid and brain tissue of guinea pigs and immunocom-
promised patients. Clin Infect Dis 2003; 37:72832.
118. Caillot D, Casasnovas O, Bernard A, et al. Improved management of
invasive pulmonary aspergillosis in neutropenic patients using early
thoracic computed tomographic scan and surgery. J Clin Oncol
1997; 15:13947.
119. Kuhn DM, George T, Chandra J, Mukherjee PK, Ghannoum MA.
Antifungal susceptibility of Candida biofilms: unique efficacy of am-
photericin B lipid formulations and echinocandins. Antimicrob
Agents Chemother 2002; 46:177380.
120. Almirante B, Rodriguez D, Park BJ, et al. Epidemiology and predictors
of mortality in cases of Candida bloodstream infection: results from
population-based surveillance, Barcelona, Spain, from 2002 to 2003.
J Clin Microbiol 2005; 43:182935.
121. Raad I, Hanna H, Boktour M, et al. Management of central venous
catheters in patients with cancer and candidemia. Clin Infect Dis
2004; 38:111927.
122. Tortorano AM, Biraghi E, Astolfi A, et al. European Confederation
of Medical Mycology (ECMM) prospective survey of candidaemia:
report from one Italian region. J Hosp Infect 2002; 51:297304.