Comparison between the EUCAST Procedure and the Etest for Determination of the Susceptibility of Candida Species Isolates to Micafungin

Marcos-Zambrano, Laura Judith; Escribano, Pilar; Rueda, Cristina; Zaragoza, Óscar; Bouza, Emilio; Guinea, Jesús

doi:10.1128/aac.01032-13

Cited by 14 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similarly, in another study, a comparison between Etest and CLSI methods showed an overall essential agreement of 94.7% and a categorical agreement of 97.2% (20). The ability of the Etest to detect micafungin resistance, for most of the species, has also been demonstrated previously by testing FKS mutant isolates (17,21,22). We enrolled 16 centers and demonstrated that the Etest gave micafungin susceptibility results that were very similar to those given by the EUCAST reference method under real-life conditions.…”

mentioning

confidence: 77%

“…(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22), but only a few comparative studies with a reference method have been performed (17,(20)(21)(22). In one of those previous studies, MarcosZambrano et al (21) tested 160 yeast isolates with both the Etest and EUCAST methods and reported an essential agreement of 90.3% at Ϯ2 log 2 dilutions (85.8% at Ϯ1 log 2 dilutions) and categorical agreement of Ͼ90%. Similarly, in another study, a comparison between Etest and CLSI methods showed an overall essential agreement of 94.7% and a categorical agreement of 97.2% (20).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(17-22), but only a few comparative studies with a reference method have been performed (17,(20)(21)(22). In one of those previous studies, MarcosZambrano et al (21) tested 160 yeast isolates with both the Etest and EUCAST methods and reported an essential agreement of 90.3% at Ϯ2 log 2 dilutions (85.8% at Ϯ1 log 2 dilutions) and categorical agreement of Ͼ90%.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Multicenter Comparison of the Etest and EUCAST Methods for Antifungal Susceptibility Testing of Candida Isolates to Micafungin

Bougnoux

Dannaoui

Accoceberry

et al. 2016

Antimicrob Agents Chemother

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In vitro susceptibility of 933 Candida isolates, from 16 French hospitals, to micafungin was determined using the Etest in each center. All isolates were then sent to a single center for determination of MICs by the EUCAST reference method. Overall essential agreement between the two tests was 98.5% at ؎2 log 2 dilutions and 90.2% at ؎1 log 2 dilutions. Categorical agreement was 98.2%. The Etest is a valuable alternative to EUCAST for the routine determination of micafungin MICs in medical mycology laboratories. The echinocandin antifungal drug micafungin is highly effective in vitro against most Candida species (1-3). Micafungin is now widely used for prophylaxis and treatment of invasive candidiasis (IC) (4,5). During the last decade, acquired resistance of various Candida species to echinocandins has emerged worldwide, including in France, and may become an important issue in the therapeutic management of IC (6-10).In vitro antifungal susceptibility testing is currently recommended to detect resistance in Candida species and to guide antifungal treatment (6, 11). Microdilution broth methods such as those published by EUCAST and CLSI are the reference methods for antifungal susceptibility testing. Nevertheless, because these reference methods are labor-intensive and time-consuming, most clinical microbiology laboratories use commercial methods, such as the Etest, for routine determination of MICs. It is therefore essential to evaluate these commercial tests and to determine their ability to give MIC values that agree with those from the reference methods. With this aim, a prospective, multicenter French study was performed to compare the EUCAST and Etest methods for micafungin susceptibility testing of a large panel of clinical isolates of different Candida species.(This study was presented in part at the 25th European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases [ECCMID], Copenhagen, Denmark, 25 to 28 April 2015.) Sixteen centers (6 in the Paris area and 10 elsewhere across France) participated in the study. Over a 2-month period, each center was asked to test 64 Candida isolates, from any clinical sample, of the following species: 10 isolates of each of the six most common pathogenic species (Candida albicans, C. glabrata, C. tropicalis, C. parapsilosis, C. kefyr, and C. krusei) and four isolates belonging to other Candida species. Species identification was performed in each center according to the currently recommended phenotypic methods (12). Micafungin susceptibility testing was performed using the Etest (bioMérieux, Marcy l'Etoile, France), according to the manufacturer's instructions. Candida isolates were then sent to a single center for MIC determination by the EUCAST reference method (13). C. krusei ATCC 6258 and C. parapsilosis ATCC 22019 were included as quality control strains (14). For comparison purposes, Etest MICs were increased to the glabrata, and C. parapsilosis isolates were considered susceptible or resistant to micafungin when MICs were Յ0.016 or Ͼ0.016 g/ml, Յ0.03 or ...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 77%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Multicenter Comparison of the Etest and EUCAST Methods for Antifungal Susceptibility Testing of Candida Isolates to Micafungin

Bougnoux

Dannaoui

Accoceberry

et al. 2016

Antimicrob Agents Chemother

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We studied 5 previously reported fks mutant Candida isolates (Candida albicans, n ϭ 1; Candida glabrata, n ϭ 1; Candida tropicalis, n ϭ 3) (15,16) (Table 1) and 10 wild-type Candida species isolates, 2 for each fks mutant isolate, matching the biofilm profile and species of the mutant isolates (C. albicans, n ϭ 2; C. glabrata, n ϭ 2; C. tropicalis, n ϭ 6). In addition, we analyzed 12 intrinsically echinocandinresistant non-Candida species (Rhodotorula mucilaginosa, n ϭ 7; Tricho-sporon asahii, n ϭ 2; Trichosporon japonicum, n ϭ 1; Trichosporon dermatis, n ϭ 1; Arxula adeninivorans, n ϭ 1).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, we analyzed 12 intrinsically echinocandinresistant non-Candida species (Rhodotorula mucilaginosa, n ϭ 7; Tricho-sporon asahii, n ϭ 2; Trichosporon japonicum, n ϭ 1; Trichosporon dermatis, n ϭ 1; Arxula adeninivorans, n ϭ 1). All isolates were obtained from positive blood cultures of patients with fungemia and were identified using the ID 32C system (bioMérieux, Marcy l'Etoile, France) and confirmed by amplification and sequencing of the ITS1-5.8S-ITS2 region (15,16).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biofilm Production and Antibiofilm Activity of Echinocandins and Liposomal Amphotericin B in Echinocandin-Resistant Yeast Species

Marcos-Zambrano

Gómez-Perosanz

Escribano

et al. 2016

Antimicrob Agents Chemother

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The echinocandins and liposomal amphotericin B are active against biofilm produced by echinocandin-susceptible Candida strains. However, few data have been reported on the production of biofilm by echinocandin-resistant isolates and their antifungal susceptibility. We studied the production of biofilm by fks mutant Candida strains and intrinsically echinocandin-resistant non-Candida isolates and the susceptibility of both entities to liposomal amphotericin B and echinocandins. We analyzed the production of biofilm by isolates from patients with fungemia (fks mutant Candida, n ‫؍‬ 5; intrinsically echinocandin-resistant non-Candida, n ‫؍‬ 12; and Candida wild type, n ‫؍‬ 10). Biofilm formation was measured to classify strains according to biomass (crystal violet assay) and metabolic activity (XTT reduction assay). Preformed biofilms were tested against liposomal amphotericin B, caspofungin, micafungin, and anidulafungin. The sessile MIC was defined as the antifungal concentration yielding a 50% or 80% reduction in the metabolic activity of the biofilm compared to that of the growth control (SMIC 50 and SMIC 80 , respectively). fks mutant Candida isolates formed biofilms in a fashion similar to that of Candida wild-type strains. The echinocandins had the highest activity against biofilms formed by wild-type Candida isolates, followed by fks mutant Candida isolates and nonCandida isolates. Liposomal amphotericin B had the highest activity against fks mutant Candida biofilms. The formation of biofilm by echinocandin-resistant strains was similar to that of wild-type strains, although resistance to echinocandins remained high.

show abstract

In Vitro Activity of Antifungal Drugs Against Trichophyton rubrum and Trichophyton mentagrophytes spp. by E-Test Method and Non-supplemented Mueller–Hinton Agar Plates

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comparison between the EUCAST Procedure and the Etest for Determination of the Susceptibility of Candida Species Isolates to Micafungin

Cited by 14 publications

References 20 publications

Multicenter Comparison of the Etest and EUCAST Methods for Antifungal Susceptibility Testing of Candida Isolates to Micafungin

Multicenter Comparison of the Etest and EUCAST Methods for Antifungal Susceptibility Testing of Candida Isolates to Micafungin

Biofilm Production and Antibiofilm Activity of Echinocandins and Liposomal Amphotericin B in Echinocandin-Resistant Yeast Species

In Vitro Activity of Antifungal Drugs Against Trichophyton rubrum and Trichophyton mentagrophytes spp. by E-Test Method and Non-supplemented Mueller–Hinton Agar Plates

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About