Mechanisms of resistance to antifungal agents: Yeasts and filamentous fungi

Failure to respond to antifungal therapy could be due to in vitro resistance (intrinsic or developed during therapy) or clinical resistance; the latter is associated with numerous factors related to the host, the antifungal agent, or the infecting isolate. Recently, a susceptible MIC breakpoint (<= 2 mu g/ml) was designed for Candida spp. to all three available echinocandins, anidulafungin (Pfizer), caspofungin (Merck) and micafungin (Astellas) and treatment failures have been associated with MICs > 2 mu g/ml. In some of these cases, clinical failure was associated with the genetic mutations described below. Azole and flucytosine breakpoints, and the echinocandin susceptible breakpoint, are useful when isolates are tested by CLSI standardized methods; breakpoints are also available by the EUCAST method. More recently, in vitro resistant MIC breakpoints have been assigned for filamentous fungi (moulds) vs. five antifungal agents, but these categories are not based on correlations of in vitro with in vivo response to therapy. However, itraconazole (Janssen), amphotericin B (Bristol-Myers) and voriconazole (Pfizer) clinical failures in aspergillosis have been correlated with MICs > 2 mu g/ml. This article provides a review of reported resistance molecular mechanisms to antifungal agents since 2005; previous related reviews are also listed.