RAPID RISK ASSESSMENT

Candida auris in healthcare settings – Europe

First update, 23 April 2018

Main conclusions and options for response

Candida auris poses a risk for patients in healthcare facilities across Europe due to its propensity to cause
outbreaks and its antifungal resistance. Difficulties with laboratory identification and lack of awareness of this
Candida species may delay early detection increasing the potential for horizontal transmission. C. auris was
first identified in 2009 and within a few years has emerged as a cause of healthcare-associated infections.
Outbreaks have been reported in countries in five continents. The number of reported C. auris cases in
European countries has increased significantly since the last ECDC rapid risk assessment on C. auris in
December 2016. There continues to be a need to raise awareness of C. auris in European healthcare facilities,
so that they may adapt their laboratory testing strategies and implement enhanced infection prevention and
control measures where necessary.

Options to reduce identified risks: prevention of

transmission of C. auris in healthcare settings
Laboratory detection of C. auris
Recognition of C. auris requires that isolates of Candida species from invasive infections are accurately
identified to the species level. A correct identification of C. auris is possible using either Matrix-assisted laser
desorption/ionization time-of-flight (MALDI-TOF) mass spectrometry, provided that C. auris is included in the
reference profile database, or DNA sequencing of specific domains of the ribosomal genes. When these tests
are not available at clinical laboratory level, referral of non-albicans Candida spp. invasive isolates to a
reference mycology laboratory is advisable, especially if identified by biochemical tests as Candida haemulonii,
Candida famata, Candida sake, Rhodotorula species or Saccharomyces species. This is particularly important
for hospitals with an increased incidence of infection by non-albicans Candida species or those that admit
patients transferred from a facility reporting a C. auris outbreak. Where Candida species isolates are tested for
antifungal susceptibility, resistance to fluconazole is another characteristic that should prompt tests to speciate
the Candida isolate.

Standard infection control measures

Good standard infection control, including environmental cleaning, adequate cleaning and reprocessing of
medical devices, and adequate capacity of microbiological laboratories, as well as sufficient capacity of
healthcare facilities for patient isolation, are the basis for the prevention of transmission of any pathogen in
healthcare settings.

Suggested citation: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Candida auris in healthcare settings –
Europe – first update, 23 April 2018. Stockholm: ECDC; 2018.
© European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, Stockholm, 2018
RAPID RISK ASSESSMENT Candida auris in healthcare settings – Europe, first update, 23 April 2018

Preventing transmission from patients known to carry C. auris

Early, robust action is recommended to prevent an outbreak as these can be prolonged, costly and may pose
significant risk to compromised patients. Prompt notification of C. auris to the clinical and infection control
teams is essential to implement infection control precautions in a timely manner and to ensure vigilance for
development of infections in patients found to be colonised. The detection of a case of C. auris should trigger
an investigation including a detailed case review and screening of close contact patients for C. auris carriage.
More extensive contact tracing can be considered based on a case-by-case risk assessment (for example,
taking into account the type of patient population and ward in which the C. auris case is detected, and the
extent of C. auris colonisation and of the contacts of the affected patient).
Infection control options for hospitals to consider implementing include enhanced control measures such as
contact precautions, single room isolation or patient cohorting, and dedicated nursing staff for patients who
are colonised or infected with C. auris. As there are currently no established protocols for decolonisation and
determining when it is safe to end isolation, these precautions need to be applied until the discharge of the
patient from the hospital. Screening of close contacts of identified cases for C. auris carriage with axilla and
groin swabs is an important component of the response to C. auris. Other sites (urine, wounds, catheter exit
sites, throat etc.) can be sampled, if clinically relevant or indicated.
Emphasis is required on the terminal cleaning and disinfection of rooms after discharge of patients who carry,
or are infected with, C. auris, using chlorine-based disinfectants (at a concentration of 1 000 ppm), hydrogen-
peroxide or other disinfectants with documented fungicidal activity. Quaternary ammonium compound
disinfectants should be avoided. Single use equipment or equipment specific to a C. auris patient or cohort is
preferable where possible as patient shared equipment has been found to be contaminated with C. auris in an
outbreak situation . Ensuring that cleaning and disinfection of reusable equipment (e.g. monitoring devices,
thermometers, pulse oximeters, blood pressure measuring instruments, etc.) is performed according to
manufacturer’s instructions is also important. Environmental sampling or screening of healthcare workers are
not routinely recommended.

Additional control options for outbreaks

Raising awareness and providing education to all healthcare groups is essential to manage the outbreak.
Prompt initiation of an epidemiological investigation, complemented by cross-sectional screening of patients
for C. auris carriage, is useful to establish the source of the outbreak and thus prevent further cases.
Potentially effective enhanced measures to control C. auris outbreaks include regular active surveillance
cultures for C. auris carriage of all patients in affected wards, cohorting of C. auris-positive patients with
dedicated nursing staff in separate areas, as well as rigorous environmental cleaning and disinfection.
Education and practice audits to improve compliance of healthcare workers with hand hygiene, contact
precautions and supervision of appropriate implementation of environmental cleaning are important supportive
interventions. Hospital senior management support is needed to provide adequate resources for the
implementation of appropriate infection control measures.

Antimicrobial stewardship
Although there is no evidence for a specific beneficial effect of antimicrobial stewardship on the emergence
and spread of C. auris, it is likely that an environment with a high level of broad-spectrum antibacterial and
antifungal use will favour the emergence of multidrug-resistant yeasts, such as C. auris. Therefore, the
implementation of antimicrobial stewardship is likely to mitigate the risks of C. auris acquisition and
transmission, as well as being an essential component of strategies to reduce antimicrobial resistance in
general. The need for antifungal prophylaxis should be reviewed in terms of risk-benefit analysis in settings
with evidence of C. auris transmission.

Prevention of inter-hospital transmission, including cross-border

transmission
Admission screening for C. auris carriage and pre-emptive isolation of patients who are transferred from, or
have recently been admitted to hospitals that have detected C. auris cases should be considered. This implies
that affected facilities need to notify the receiving healthcare facilities and clinicians in the case of transfer of
patients with C. auris carriage or infection. Moreover, gathering reliable epidemiological data through
notification of C. auris cases to public health authorities and exchange of information through electronic early
warning platforms, such as the Epidemic Intelligence System (EPIS), will enable informed and coordinated risk
management actions by public health authorities across the EU/EEA.

2
RAPID RISK ASSESSMENT Candida auris in healthcare settings – Europe, first update, 23 April 2018

Improvement of preparedness in EU/EEA countries

EU/EEA countries should consider alerting clinicians and microbiologists in their healthcare facilities and
associated clinical microbiology laboratories to raise awareness about this emerging fungal pathogen with
epidemic potential, with the aim of adapting laboratory testing practice at primary and reference levels and
establishing specific control measures in a timely manner. National guidelines for laboratory testing and control
measures for C. auris will enable the implementation of appropriate measures in healthcare facilities. Sharing
experiences of outbreaks and implementation of control measures can be facilitated by ECDC.

Improvement of laboratory capacity for detection and antifungal susceptibility

testing of C. auris
As not all laboratories serving healthcare facilities have the capacity for C. auris identification and susceptibility
testing of the whole panel of antifungal agents, a national mycology reference laboratory could assist clinical
laboratories with C. auris identification, antifungal susceptibility testing, molecular typing, and epidemiological
investigations. The reference laboratory may also issue guidance for local laboratories on how to proceed with
difficult-to-identify Candida species isolates, and isolates suspected as being C. auris, and provide instructions
for referring samples for further testing and for reporting results. Multi-country laboratory collaboration across
the EU/EEA could be helpful to perform centralised reference antifungal susceptibility testing of invasive C.
auris isolates and identify correlates of clinical treatment outcomes.

Case finding and improved surveillance for C. auris infections

EU/EEA countries may consider laboratory-based notification of C. auris invasive infections and prospective
data collection at the national level, especially if cases and outbreaks have already occurred in the country.
Surveillance systems for healthcare-associated infections should consider updating their definitions to include
C. auris in the list of reportable pathogens associated with healthcare-associated infections.

Source and date of request

Request from the European Commission on 4 April 2018 to update the rapid risk assessment published on 19
December 2016.

Public health issue

Candida auris is an emerging fungal pathogen associated with outbreaks of invasive infection, including
candidemia, in healthcare settings worldwide. In Europe, hospital outbreaks caused by C. auris have occurred in
the UK and Spain. These hospital outbreaks have been difficult to control despite enhanced control measures.
C. auris can cause invasive infections in patients with severe underlying diseases or immunosuppression, and most
C. auris isolates are resistant to fluconazole. Resistance to other antifungal agents has been reported, and
multidrug-resistant C. auris isolates with resistance to all three main classes of antifungals have been described.
Unlike other Candida species, C. auris seems to have a high propensity for patient-to-patient transmission in
healthcare settings, possibly related to environmental contamination, or transient person or device colonisation.
Commercially available laboratory tests used by clinical laboratories might fail to identify C. auris.
This rapid risk assessment update appraises the risk for spread of C. auris in hospitals in the European Union and
European Economic Area (EU/EEA) countries, considering the newly available information from the ECDC survey on
the epidemiological situation as well as laboratory capacity and preparedness for C. auris in EU/EEA countries.

3
RAPID RISK ASSESSMENT Candida auris in healthcare settings – Europe, first update, 23 April 2018

Consulted experts
Internal experts consulted (in alphabetical order): Netta Beer, Anke Kohlenberg, Dominique Monnet, Diamantis
Plachouras, Marc Struelens.
External experts consulted (in alphabetical order): Ana Alastruey-Izquierdo (Mycology Reference Laboratory,
National Centre for Microbiology, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain), Colin Brown (Public Health England,
London, UK), Boudewijn Catry (Sciensano, Brussels, Belgium), Maiken Cavling Arendrup (Statens Serum Institute,
Copenhagen, Denmark), Francoise Dromer (National Reference Center for Invasive Mycosis & Antifungals, Institut
Pasteur, France), Rebecca Guy (Public Health England, London, UK), Peter Hoffman (Public Health England, UK),
Elizabeth Johnson (PHE Mycology Reference Laboratory, Bristol, UK), Oliver Kacelnik (National Institute of Public
Health, Oslo, Norway), Oliver Kurzai (National Reference Center for Invasive Fungal Infections NRZMyk, Jena and
Institute for Hygiene and Microbiology, Würzburg, Germany), Robert Muchl (Federal Ministry of Labour, Social
Affairs, Health and Consumer Protection, Vienna, Austria), Bharat Patel (Public Health England, London, UK), Javier
Peman (La Fe University Hospital, Valencia, Spain), Silke Schelenz (Royal Brompton Hospital, London, UK), Surabhi
Taori (Kings College Hospital, London, UK).

Disease background information

Invasive candidiasis is the most common fungal disease in hospitalised patients [1]. In the ECDC point prevalence
survey of healthcare-associated infections and antimicrobial use in European acute care hospitals 2011–2012,
Candida spp. was the fifth most common pathogen associated with bloodstream infections, isolated in 7.4% of all
documented cases [2]. While C. albicans remains the predominant cause of invasive candidiasis, there has been a
shift towards an increasing proportion of non-albicans Candida species such as C. glabrata in recent years [1,3].
Candida auris is a newly emerging yeast that was first described in 2009 after isolation from the ear canal of a
Japanese patient [4], and has subsequently been associated with invasive infections and outbreaks in healthcare
settings. C. auris cases have been reported from several countries in different continents such as South Korea [5],
South Africa [6], India [7], Pakistan [8], Kuwait [9], Columbia [10], Venezuela [11], Israel [12], Oman [13], Kenya
[14], the UK [15], Spain, Germany, France, Austria, Norway [16], Canada [17] and the USA [18]. A published
laboratory-based study has also included isolates from Brazil [19].
C. auris infections include bloodstream infections, wound infections and ear infections [4,5,9,15]. The majority of
the published cases have been C. auris bloodstream infections. C. auris has also been isolated from urine [18],
though this may have represented carriage rather than infection.
Non-albicans Candida spp. have emerged in healthcare settings worldwide, presumably related to the use of
prophylactic antifungal drugs in high-risk populations [20], but C. auris seems to be unique in its propensity to be
transmitted between patients and cause outbreaks in healthcare settings. A number of hospital outbreaks have
been reported and several molecular studies confirming intra- or interhospital transmission of C. auris have been
published [7,11,15].

Laboratory identification, molecular typing and antimicrobial

susceptibility testing
In the context of the emergence of C. auris and the increase of antifungal resistant Candida infections, isolates of
Candida non-albicans from invasive infections should be identified to species level. C. auris cannot be identified
based on microscopy or growth on chromogenic agars [21]. C. auris isolates are germ tube test negative and
produce colonies that may appear pale purple, beige or pink on the CHROMagar Candida agar medium. C. auris is
able to grow at 42°C. Biochemical testing can misidentify C. auris using Vitek-2, BD Phoenix, MicroScan
instruments or API strips. Therefore, further testing needs to be undertaken if biochemical tests identify yeast
isolates from blood cultures as Candida haemulonii, Saccharomyces cerevisiae or other commonly misidentified
Candida species [6,21–24].
Matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight (MALDI-TOF) mass spectrometry can reliably differentiate
C. auris from other Candida species as long as the C. auris spectrum is included in the reference database and care
is given to an appropriate extraction method [23,25]. Alternatively, molecular identification of C. auris can be
performed by sequencing various DNA loci within specific domains of ribosomal genes (18S rDNA, 28S rDNA or
internal transcribed spacers ITS1, ITS2) [7,24]. A PCR assay for rapid identification of C. auris and closely related
species has been developed, based on rDNA amplicon melting temperature analysis [26]. This assay and other
rapid Candida detection assays in development await further clinical evaluation of diagnostic accuracy.
Molecular typing of C. auris can be performed using a variety of methods. Sequencing of rDNA loci (D1/D2 or ITS
regions) can be used to differentiate between the four major phylo-geographic clades of this species. Further
delineation of local hospital outbreaks require higher resolution methods, including typing by amplified fragment
length polymorphism (AFLP) and whole genome sequencing analysis [24].

4
RAPID RISK ASSESSMENT Candida auris in healthcare settings – Europe, first update, 23 April 2018

Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) clinical breakpoints for C. auris have not yet been established, therefore
breakpoints of related Candida species have been used for the interpretation of antifungal susceptibility testing [8].
The EUCAST reference broth microdilution method can be used and interpreted with non-species-related clinical
breakpoints for fluconazole susceptibility [27]. A comparison of the EUCAST and CLSI broth microdilution methods
showed very similar MIC values and estimated epidemiological cut-off values for a range of antifungal agents
against a collection of C. auris isolates from India, confirming uniform resistance to fluconazole [28].
Active surveillance cultures for C. auris among contact patients are an important part of outbreak control
measures. In the 2015–2016 UK outbreak, contact patients were screened at the following sites: nose, axilla,
groin, throat, rectum/faeces, vascular line and drain exit sites as well as from clinical samples such as urine,
wound, drain fluid and respiratory specimens [15,24]. In the USA, patient colonisation screening cultures had the
highest yield with combined axilla and groin swabs supplemented, as clinically indicated, by other samples such as
swabbing at any indwelling catheter exit sites [29].

Antifungal resistance
Subject to use of various tentative breakpoints for susceptibility testing of outbreak related isolates, the vast
majority of the C. auris isolates described worldwide have been resistant to fluconazole, and multidrug-resistant
isolates have been demonstrated at variable rates to other azoles, to amphotericin B, and to echinocandins,
depending on the study [8,28-30].

Event background information

Cases and outbreaks of C. auris in EU/EEA Member States
In response to the ECDC C. auris survey, 620 C. auris cases were reported from six EU/ EEA countries for the
period 2013–2017. During this period, cases were reported from Spain (n = 388), the UK (n = 221), Germany
(n = 7), France (n = 2), Belgium (n = 1) and Norway (n = 1) (Table 1, Figure 1) [16]. Austria detected one case in
January 2018. The majority of cases were reported as colonisation (n = 466; 75.2%), while a bloodstream or other
type of infection was reported in 150 (24.2%) cases. For four (0.6%) cases, the colonisation/infection status was
unknown.
Table 1. Number of Candida auris cases detected in the EU/EEA, 2013–2017 (n = 620)a [16]

Year C. auris Other type of C. C. auris Cases of unknown Total

bloodstream auris infection colonisation infection/colonisation status
infection
n % n % n % n % n
2013 1 33.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 66.7 3
2014 0 0.0 1 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1
2015 6 26.1 11 47.8 6 26.1 0 0.0 23
2016 53 18.3 13 4.5 223 76.9 1 0.3 290
2017 50 16.5 15 5.0 237 78.2 1 0.3 303
2013–2017 110 17.7 40 6.5 466 75.2 4 0.6 620

All percentages are row percentages. a One additional case was detected in Austria in January 2018 and is not included in the
table.

5
RAPID RISK ASSESSMENT Candida auris in healthcare settings – Europe, first update, 23 April 2018

Figure 1. Geographic distribution of Candida auris cases reported in EU/EEA countries, 2013–2017
(n=620)a [16]

a
The map includes one additional case detected in Austria in January 2018, which is not included in the total for the period
2013–2017. Sporadic cases include one case for Austria, one case for Belgium, two cases for France, seven cases for Germany
and one case for Norway.
Two countries experienced four nosocomial outbreaks of C. auris affecting a total of 573 patients. The number of
cases per outbreak ranged from 39 to 382 according to national reporting. Inter-facility transmission occurred in
the four outbreaks, and one outbreak lasted nearly two years. Three outbreaks were controlled whereas one
outbreak was still ongoing as of January 2018 [16].

Laboratory capacity and preparedness

Twenty-one out of the 29 EU/EEA countries responding to the ECDC survey on C. auris stated that laboratory
capability to detect and identify C. auris was available, either by formally designated mycology reference
laboratories in 12 countries or by laboratories with a reference function in nine  countries [16]. Public health
measures for preparedness or response to C. auris were taken in 20 countries. The most common measures taken
were dissemination of laboratory alerts (18 countries) or clinical alerts (10 countries,) and offers for reference
identification and antifungal susceptibility testing to hospital laboratories (13 countries). Preparation of guidance
for laboratory testing (7 countries), for clinical management ( 4 countries) or for infection control (4 countries) was
undertaken less frequently, and retrospective or prospective surveillance was in place in only a few countries ( 8
and 7 countries, respectively) [16].

ECDC threat assessment for the EU

Impact on human health
Healthcare-associated C. auris infections
Healthcare-associated C. auris bloodstream infections have affected patients with severe underlying diseases or
immunosuppression, such as patients with diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, HIV-infection, solid tumours
and haematological malignancies [7,18]. Neonates have also been affected [8]. However, patients without any
underlying severe disease have also been at risk of invasive disease in ongoing outbreaks depending on the
affected unit. Patients who developed a C. auris infection had frequently been exposed to medical procedures and
devices including central venous and urinary catheters, surgery, treatment with broad-spectrum antibiotics, and
admission to intensive care units [7,20]. Treatment with systemic antifungals prior to C. auris infection has also
been reported for several patients [8].

6
RAPID RISK ASSESSMENT Candida auris in healthcare settings – Europe, first update, 23 April 2018

Limited treatment options

Fluconazole and the echinocandins are the antifungal agents most commonly used for the treatment of Candida
bloodstream infection (candidemia). Both are better tolerated than amphotericin B, which is less often prescribed
due to the risk of toxicity. Fluconazole cannot be used for treatment of C. auris infection as nearly all isolates are
fluconazole-resistant. Resistance to other antifungals seems to be more variable; however, isolates with resistance
to all three major classes of antifungals (azoles, echinocandins, and amphotericin B) have been described [22].
This is of concern as it seriously limits available treatment options for patients with invasive C. auris infections.

Mortality
Studies have reported a case-fatality rate of Candida bloodstream infection of around 30–40%, even in patients
receiving antifungal treatment [1,31]. In an invertebrate systemic infection model, the pathogenicity of the most
virulent C. auris strains was comparable to that of C. albicans [32]. There is currently limited information on the
case-fatality rate for C. auris bloodstream infections due to the small number of patients included in published case
series or outbreak descriptions. A study published in 2013 reported case-fatality rates for C. auris bloodstream
infections of 33% for all patients and 57% for the subgroup of patients admitted to intensive care units, but these
rates might be attributable to the severity of underlying diseases in these patients [7]. In the UK outbreak, no
fatality could be directly attributed to C. auris infection [15,24]. However, as invasive Candida infections often
occur in severely ill patients with multiple comorbidities, attributable mortality is difficult to determine [24].

Potential for spread

Outbreaks and spread in healthcare settings
Based on molecular typing, transmission of C. auris between separate wards that did not share healthcare
personnel was reported from a hospital in India [7]. Inter-facility transmission of C. auris was also reported in the
same study [7] and has occurred in all four outbreaks in the EU/EEA [16]. The majority of C. auris infections
reported in the published literature were acquired in healthcare settings. The capacity for intra- and inter-hospital
spread combined with multi-drug resistance suggest that C. auris has the typical characteristics of a healthcare-
associated pathogen and further spread in healthcare settings can be expected.
C. auris outbreaks have been difficult to control, with cases in affected hospitals detected over periods longer than
a year [11,15]. Widespread environmental contamination of surfaces and equipment surrounding patients carrying
C. auris has been demonstrated [15,18]. Carriers also represent an important reservoir, and continuous carriage
for up to three months after initial isolation of C. auris has been documented [18]. Decolonisation was attempted
in one outbreak, but colonisation persisted despite daily body washes and oral hygiene with chlorhexidine [15].
There is currently insufficient evidence regarding decolonisation regimens and their effectiveness to eradicate C.
auris carriage.
Clinicians, infection control staff and microbiologists, even with experience in the control of multidrug-resistant
bacteria, may not expect outbreaks of Candida species, including C. auris. Combined with the additional difficulties
with laboratory identification, this lack of awareness might result in outbreaks of C. auris remaining unnoticed or
only being detected after spread and severe infections have already occurred. It is therefore important to raise
awareness and inform clinical and laboratory staff about this emerging threat. As of January 2018, several health
authorities in EU/EEA countries had not yet issued such clinical or laboratory alerts [16].

Cross-border transmission
Due to the difficulties with laboratory identification, little is known about the prevalence of C. auris in different
regions of the world. Nevertheless, C. auris isolates, cases and outbreaks have now been reported from five
continents: Europe, Asia, North America, South America, and Africa. A recent study showed that isolates of C. auris
present in the UK have several diverse geographic origins, suggesting multiple introductions into the country [33].
Likewise, whole genome sequencing (WGS) analysis of all clinical C. auris isolates reported to the US Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) from across US hospitals revealed clonal dissemination within several States,
of closely related isolates that grouped either with the South Asian clade (New York and New Jersey) or with the
South American clade (Illinois) [29]. The increasing number of sporadic cases reported in EU/EEA countries in 2018
[16], compared with 2016 [34] confirms that C. auris is repeatedly being introduced into hospitals in Europe, each
time with the potential risk for further transmission and healthcare-associated outbreaks among vulnerable patient
populations in high-dependency care settings.

7
RAPID RISK ASSESSMENT Candida auris in healthcare settings – Europe, first update, 23 April 2018

Disclaimer
ECDC issued this risk assessment document in accordance with Article 10 of Decision No 1082/13/EC and Article
7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 851/2004 establishing a European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. In the
framework of ECDC’s mandate, the specific purpose of an ECDC risk assessment is to present different options on
a certain matter with their respective advantages and disadvantages. The responsibility on the choice of which
option to pursue and which actions to take, including the adoption of mandatory rules or guidelines, lies exclusively
with the EU/EEA Member States. In its activities, ECDC strives to ensure its independence, high scientific quality,
transparency and efficiency. This report was written under the coordination of an Internal Response Team at
ECDC. All data published in this risk assessment are correct to the best of our knowledge on 16 April 2018. Maps
and figures published do not represent a statement on the part of ECDC or its partners on the legal or border
status of the countries and territories shown.

8
RAPID RISK ASSESSMENT Candida auris in healthcare settings – Europe, first update, 23 April 2018

References
1. Kullberg BJ, Arendrup MC. Invasive Candidiasis. N Engl J Med. 2015 Oct 08;373(15):1445-56.
2. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Point prevalence survey of healthcare-associated
infections and antimicrobial use in European acute care hospitals 2011-2012. Stockholm: ECDC; 2013.
Available from: http://ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications/publications/healthcare-associated-infections-
antimicrobial-use-pps.pdf.
3. Pfaller MA, Diekema DJ. Epidemiology of invasive candidiasis: a persistent public health problem. Clin
Microbiol Rev. 2007 Jan;20(1):133-63.
4. Satoh K, Makimura K, Hasumi Y, Nishiyama Y, Uchida K, Yamaguchi H. Candida auris sp. nov., a novel
ascomycetous yeast isolated from the external ear canal of an inpatient in a Japanese hospital. Microbiol
Immunol. 2009 Jan;53(1):41-4.
5. Lee WG, Shin JH, Uh Y, Kang MG, Kim SH, Park KH, et al. First three reported cases of nosocomial fungemia
caused by Candida auris. J Clin Microbiol. 2011 Sep;49(9):3139-42.
6. Magobo RE, Corcoran C, Seetharam S, Govender NP. Candida auris-associated candidemia, South Africa.
Emerg Infect Dis. 2014 Jul;20(7):1250-1.
7. Chowdhary A, Sharma C, Duggal S, Agarwal K, Prakash A, Singh PK, et al. New clonal strain of Candida
auris, Delhi, India. Emerg Infect Dis. 2013 Oct;19(10):1670-3.
8. Lockhart S, Etienne K, Vallabhaneni S, Farooqi J, Chowdhary A, Govender NP, et al. Simultaneous
emergence of multidrug resistant Candida auris on three continents confirmed by whole genome
sequencing and epidemiological analyses. Clin Infect Dis.Advance Access, published October 20, 2016.
9. Emara M, Ahmad S, Khan Z, Joseph L, Al-Obaid I, Purohit P, et al. Candida auris candidemia in Kuwait,
2014. Emerg Infect Dis. 2015 Jun;21(6):1091-2.
10. Morales-Lopez SE, Parra-Giraldo CM, Ceballos-Garzon A, Martinez HP, Rodriguez GJ, Alvarez-Moreno CA, et
al. Invasive Infections with Multidrug-Resistant Yeast Candida auris, Colombia. Emerg Infect Dis. 2017
Jan;23(1):162-4.
11. Calvo B, Melo AS, Perozo-Mena A, Hernandez M, Francisco EC, Hagen F, et al. First report of Candida auris
in America: Clinical and microbiological aspects of 18 episodes of candidemia. J Infect. 2016 Oct;73(4):369-
74.
12. Belkin A, Gazit Z, Keller N, Ben-Ami R, Wieder-Finesod A, Novikov A, et al. Candida auris Infection Leading
to Nosocomial Transmission, Israel, 2017. Emerg Infect Dis. 2018 Apr;24(4):801-4.
13. Al-Siyabi T, Al Busaidi I, Balkhair A, Al-Muharrmi Z, Al-Salti M, Al'Adawi B. First report of Candida auris in
Oman: Clinical and microbiological description of five candidemia cases. J Infect. 2017 Oct;75(4):373-6.
14. Okinda N, Kagotho E, Castanheira M, Njuguna A, Omuse G, Makau P, et al. Candidemia at a referral hospital
in sub-saharan Africa: emergence of Candida auris as a major pathogen. Poster ECCMID; Barcelona, 2014.
15. Schelenz S, Hagen F, Rhodes JL, Abdolrasouli A, Chowdhary A, Hall A, et al. First hospital outbreak of the
globally emerging Candida auris in a European hospital. Antimicrobial resistance and infection control.
2016;5:35.
16. Kohlenberg A, Struelens MJ, Monnet DL, Plachouras D, The Candida Auris Survey Collaborative G. Candida
auris: epidemiological situation, laboratory capacity and preparedness in European Union and European
Economic Area countries, 2013 to 2017. Euro Surveill. 2018 Mar;23(13).
17. Schwartz IS Hammond GW. First reported case of multidrug-resistant Candida auris in Canada. Can
Commun Dis Rep. 2017;43:150-3.
18. Vallabhaneni S, Kallen A, Tsay S, Chow N, Welsh R, Kerins J, et al. Investigation of the First Seven Reported
Cases of Candida auris, a Globally Emerging Invasive, Multidrug-Resistant Fungus - United States, May
2013-August 2016. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2016 Nov 11;65(44):1234-7.
19. Prakash A, Sharma C, Singh A, Kumar Singh P, Kumar A, Hagen F, et al. Evidence of genotypic diversity
among Candida auris isolates by multilocus sequence typing, matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization
time-of-flight mass spectrometry and amplified fragment length polymorphism. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2016
Mar;22(3):277.e1-9.
20. Chowdhary A, Voss A, Meis JF. Multidrug-resistant Candida auris: 'new kid on the block' in hospital-
associated infections? J Hosp Infect. 2016 Nov;94(3):209-12.

9
RAPID RISK ASSESSMENT Candida auris in healthcare settings – Europe, first update, 23 April 2018

21. Public Health England. Guidance for the laboratory investigation, management and infection prevention and
control for cases of Candida auris [internet]. London: PHE; 2016. Available from:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/534174/Guidance_Candida_
_auris.pdf.
22. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Clinical alert to U.S. healthcare facilities: global emergence of
invasive infections caused by the multidrug-resistant yeast Candida auris [Internet]. Atlanta: CDC; 2016.
Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/fungal/diseases/candidiasis/candida-auris-alert.html.
23. Mizusawa M, Miller H, Green R, Lee R, Durante M, Perkins R, et al. Can Multidrug-Resistant Candida auris
Be Reliably Identified in Clinical Microbiology Laboratories? J Clin Microbiol. 2017 Feb;55(2):638-40.
24. Jeffery-Smith A, Taori SK, Schelenz S, Jeffery K, Johnson EM, Borman A, et al. Candida auris: a Review of
the Literature. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2018 Jan;31(1).
25. Kathuria S, Singh PK, Sharma C, Prakash A, Masih A, Kumar A, et al. Multidrug-Resistant Candida auris
Misidentified as Candida haemulonii: Characterization by Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption Ionization-Time
of Flight Mass Spectrometry and DNA Sequencing and Its Antifungal Susceptibility Profile Variability by Vitek
2, CLSI Broth Microdilution, and Etest Method. J Clin Microbiol. 2015 Jun;53(6):1823-30.
26. Kordalewska M, Zhao Y, Lockhart SR, Chowdhary A, Berrio I, Perlin DS. Rapid and Accurate Molecular
Identification of the Emerging Multidrug-Resistant Pathogen Candida auris. J Clin Microbiol. 2017
Aug;55(8):2445-52.
27. European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. Antifungal agents - breakpoint tables for
interpretation of MICs: EUCAST; 2015. Available from:
http://www.eucast.org/fileadmin/src/media/PDFs/EUCAST_files/AFST/Clinical_breakpoints/Antifungal_break
points_v_8.0_November_2015.pdf.
28. Arendrup MC, Prakash A, Meletiadis J, Sharma C, Chowdhary A. Comparison of EUCAST and CLSI Reference
Microdilution MICs of Eight Antifungal Compounds for Candida auris and Associated Tentative
Epidemiological Cutoff Values. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2017 Jun;61(6).
29. Tsay S, Welsh RM, Adams EH, Chow NA, Gade L, Berkow EL, et al. Notes from the Field: Ongoing
Transmission of Candida auris in Health Care Facilities - United States, June 2016-May 2017. MMWR Morb
Mortal Wkly Rep. 2017 May 19;66(19):514-5.
30. Rhodes J, Abdolrasouli A, Farrer RA, Cuomo CA, Aanensen DM, Armstrong-James D, et al. Genomic
epidemiology of the UK outbreak of the emerging human fungal pathogen Candida auris. Emerging
microbes & infections. 2018 Mar 29;7(1):43.
31. Andes DR, Safdar N, Baddley JW, Playford G, Reboli AC, Rex JH, et al. Impact of treatment strategy on
outcomes in patients with candidemia and other forms of invasive candidiasis: a patient-level quantitative
review of randomized trials. Clin Infect Dis. 2012 Apr;54(8):1110-22.
32. Borman AM, Szekely A, Johnson EM. Comparative Pathogenicity of United Kingdom Isolates of the Emerging
Pathogen Candida auris and Other Key Pathogenic Candida Species. mSphere. 2016 Jul-Aug;1(4).
33. Borman AM, Szekely A, Johnson EM. Isolates of the emerging pathogen Candida auris present in the UK
have several geographic origins. . Med Mycol. 2016 in press.
34. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Candida auris in healthcare settings -Europe.
Stockholm: ECDC; 2016. Available from:
https://ecdc.europa.eu/sites/portal/files/media/en/publications/Publications/Candida-in-healthcare-
settings_19-Dec-2016.pdf.

10