Journal of Global Infectious DiseasesOfficial Publishing of INDUSEM and OPUS 12 Foundation, Inc. Users online:794  
Print this pageEmail this pageSmall font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size     
Home About us Editors Ahead of Print Current Issue Archives Search Instructions Subscribe Advertise Login 
Year : 2022  |  Volume : 14  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 131-135

Identification and antifungal drug susceptibility pattern of Candida auris in India

1 Department of Infectious Diseases, Metropolis Healthcare Limited, Global Reference Laboratory, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
2 Department of Microbiology, Metropolis Healthcare Limited, Global Reference Laboratory, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
3 Department of Molecular Biology, Metropolis Healthcare Limited, Global Reference Laboratory, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Smita Deshkar
Department of Infectious Diseases, Metropolis Healthcare Limited, Kohinoor City, Commercial Bldg. - A, 4th Floor, Off-L.B.S. Road, Vidyavihar (West), Mumbai - 400 070, Maharashtra
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/jgid.jgid_44_22

Rights and Permissions

Introduction: Candida auris has turned up as a multidrug-resistant nosocomial agent with outbreaks reported worldwide. The present study was conducted to evaluate the antifungal drug susceptibility pattern of C. auris. Methods: Isolates of C. auris were obtained from clinically suspected cases of candidemia from January 2019 to June 2021. Identification was done with matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization-time of flight (MALDI-TOF) and panfungal DNA polymerase chain reaction (PCR), followed by sequencing. Antifungal susceptibility testing was performed with broth microdilution method. Results: Out of 50 isolates C. auris, 49 were identified by MALDI-TOF and one isolate was identified with panfungal DNA PCR followed by sequencing. For fluconazole, 84% (n = 42) isolates were found to be resistant and 16% (n = 8) isolates were susceptible (minimum inhibitory concentrations [MICs] range 0.5–16). Posaconazole exhibited potent activity, followed by itraconazole. For amphotericin B, only 6% (n = 3) isolates were resistant with MICs ≥2 μg/mL. Only 4% (n = 2) isolates exhibited resistance to caspofungin. No resistance was noted for micafungin and anidulafungin. One (2%) isolate was found to be panazole resistant. One (2%) isolate was resistant to fluconazole, amphotericin B, and caspofungin. Conclusion: Correct identification of C. auris can be obtained with the use of MALDI-TOF and sequencing methods. A small percentage of fluconazole-sensitive isolates are present. Although elevated MICs for amphotericin B and echinocandins are not generally observed, the possibility of resistance with the irrational use of these antifungal drugs cannot be denied. Pan azole-resistant and pan drug-resistant strains of C. auris are on rise.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded253    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


Sitemap | What's New | Feedback | Copyright and Disclaimer | Privacy Notice | Contact Us
2008 Journal of Global Infectious Diseases | Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
Online since 10th December, 2008