Candida spp. is able to form a biofilm, which is considered resistant to the majority of antifungals used in medicine. The aim of this study was to evaluate the in vitro activity of micafungin against Candida spp. biofilms at different stages of their maturation (2, 6, and 24 h). We assessed the inhibitory effect of micafungin against 78 clinical isolates of Candida spp., growing as planktonic or sessile cells, by widely recommended broth microdilution method. The in vitro effect on sessile cells viability was evaluated by colorimetric reduction assay. All examined strains were susceptible or intermediate to micafungin when growing as planktonic cells. At the early stages of biofilm maturation, from 11 (39.3%) to 20 (100%), tested strains, depending on the species, exhibited sessile minimal inhibitory concentrations (SMICs) of micafungin at ≤ 2 mg/L. For 24-h-old Candida spp. biofilms, from 3 (10.7%) to 20 (100%) of the tested strains displayed SMICs of micafungin at ≤ 2 mg/L. Our findings confirm that micafungin exhibits high potential anti-Candida-biofilm activity. However, this effect does not comprise all Candida species and strains. All strains were susceptible or intermediate to micafungin when growing as planktonic cells, but for biofilms, micafungin displays species- and strain-specific activity. Paradoxical growth of C. albicans and C. parapsilosis was observed. Antifungal susceptibility testing of Candida spp. biofilms would be the best solution, but to date, no reference method is available. The strongest antibiofilm activity of micafungin is observed at early stages of biofilm formation. Possibly, micafungin could be considered as an effective agent for prevention of biofilm-associated candidiasis, especially catheter-related candidaemia.

Department of Microbiology Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń Ludwik Rydygier Collegium Medicum in Bydgoszcz 9 Marii Curie Skłodowskiej Street 85 094 Bydgoszcz Poland

Zobrazit více v PubMed

J Bacteriol. 2001 Sep;183(18):5385-94 PubMed

Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2013 Jun;57(6):2562-70 PubMed

Clin Microbiol Rev. 2004 Apr;17(2):255-67 PubMed

Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2007 Apr;51(4):1520-3 PubMed

J Antimicrob Chemother. 2016 Sep;71(9):2498-501 PubMed

Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2009 Nov;34(5):500-2 PubMed

Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2007 Sep;51(9):3081-8 PubMed

Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2014 Sep;58(9):5581-4 PubMed

Folia Microbiol (Praha). 2007;52(3):209-14 PubMed

Int J Med Microbiol. 2014 Nov;304(8):1192-8 PubMed

J Med Microbiol. 2006 Aug;55(Pt 8):999-1008 PubMed

Med Mycol. 2016 Feb;54(2):155-61 PubMed

Methods Mol Biol. 2009;499:55-62 PubMed

Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1995 Sep;39(9):2128-31 PubMed

Microbiology. 2010 Dec;156(Pt 12):3635-3644 PubMed

Eukaryot Cell. 2005 Apr;4(4):633-8 PubMed

Med Mycol. 2009 Nov;47(7):681-9 PubMed

Clin Microbiol Infect. 2015 May;21 Suppl 1:S1-25 PubMed

Clin Infect Dis. 2016 Feb 15;62(4):e1-50 PubMed

Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2016 Apr;47(4):304-10 PubMed

Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2001 Sep;45(9):2475-9 PubMed

Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2011 Mar 01;16(2):e139-43 PubMed

Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2009 Jun;53(6):2638-9 PubMed

Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2016 May 23;60(6):3579-86 PubMed

Clin Infect Dis. 2009 Jun 15;48(12 ):1676-84 PubMed

Clin Infect Dis. 2015 Dec 1;61 Suppl 6:S618-21 PubMed

Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2013 May;57(5):2226-30 PubMed

Med Mycol. 2014 Feb;52(2):131-139 PubMed

Methods Enzymol. 1999;310:644-56 PubMed

J Dent Res. 2001 Mar;80(3):903-8 PubMed

Emerg Infect Dis. 2001 Mar-Apr;7(2):342-7 PubMed

Bone Marrow Transplant. 2007 Feb;39(3):157-64 PubMed

Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2002 Jun;46(6):1773-80 PubMed

Mycoses. 2013 Sep;56(5):576-81 PubMed

Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2007 Mar;57(3):277-81 PubMed