Genetically related micafungin-resistant Candida parapsilosis blood isolates harbouring novel mutation R658G in hotspot 1 of Fks1p: a new challenge?

Abstract Background Echinocandin resistance rarely occurs in clinical Candida parapsilosis isolates and the underlying mechanism is unknown. Objectives To determine the prevalence of echinocandin resistance and the underlying mechanism for a large collection of C. parapsilosis blood isolates and to determine whether the echinocandin-resistant isolates were clonally related. Methods C. parapsilosis blood isolates (n = 213) were subjected to antifungal susceptibility testing (CLSI M27), for micafungin, anidulafungin, amphotericin B and, if appropriate, caspofungin. Hotspot (HS) 1 and HS2 of FKS1 were sequenced for all isolates (n = 213) and microsatellite typing was performed for echinocandin-resistant isolates. Results All isolates were susceptible to amphotericin B and two isolates were intermediate to anidulafungin (MIC = 4 mg/L), while micafungin resistance was noted in four isolates (MIC >8 mg/L); three of which were also fluconazole resistant and therefore were MDR. Interestingly, micafungin-resistant isolates, but not those intermediate to anidulafungin, carried novel mutation R658G in HS1 of Fks1p; three of which also harboured Y132F+K143R in Erg11. The first isolate (MICR1) was recovered in November 2017 from a patient admitted to paediatric gastroenterology who showed therapeutic failure under caspofungin treatment. MICR2–MICR4 were collected during 2018–19 and were recovered from three echinocandin-naive paediatric-surgery patients; the isolates shared the same genotype. Conclusions Herein, for the first time (to the best of our knowledge), we identified micafungin-resistant C. parapsilosis blood isolates harbouring a novel mutation in HS1 of FKS1, which was likely attributable to in vitro micafungin resistance and in vivo caspofungin therapeutic failure. The acquisition of micafungin-resistant C. parapsilosis isolates in echinocandin-naive patients likely implicates clonal expansion, as supported by the close genetic relatedness of MICR2–MICR4.