Previous Article | Next Article 
Journal of Clinical Microbiology, January 2001, p. 339-342, Vol. 39, No. 1
Laboratoire de Botanique, Cryptogamie et
Biologie Cellulaire, Faculté de Pharmacie, 13005 Marseille,1 and Laboratoire de
Microbiologie, CHU Nord, and Hôpital St. Joseph, 13000 Marseille,2 France, and AB BIODISK,
Solna, Sweden3
Received 31 July 2000/Returned for modification 15 August
2000/Accepted 17 October 2000
Both intrinsic and acquired resistance to amphotericin B have been
documented for Candida lusitaniae. Amphotericin B remains the drug of choice for many critical fungal infections, and the detection of resistance is essential to monitor treatment effectively. The limitations of the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards (NCCLS) reference methodology for detection of amphotericin B
resistance are well documented, and several alternative methods have
been proposed. Etest assays with RPMI and antibiotic medium 3 (AM3)
agar were compared to the NCCLS M27-A broth macrodilution method using
AM3 for amphotericin B resistance testing with 49 clinical
isolates of C. lusitaniae. The panel included nine
isolates with known or presumed resistance to amphotericin B on the
basis of in vivo and/or in vitro data. The distribution of amphotericin B MICs by Etest with RPMI ranged from 0.032 to 16 µg/ml and was bimodal. All of the putatively resistant isolates were inhibited by
amphotericin B at Amphotericin B is the drug of choice
for many systemic fungal infections (7). Although
rare, treatment failures associated with resistance to amphotericin B
or resistance to amphotericin B and azoles in both
immunocompromised and immunocompetent patients have been documented
(3, 13, 18). Among the non-Candida albicans
species, Candida lusitaniae is of special interest, owing to
its uncommon susceptibility pattern (1, 5, 9). Rapidly acquired resistance to amphotericin B has been described or suspected, and some strains of C. lusitaniae may be intrinsically
resistant (6, 15). The detection of resistance to
amphotericin B is essential for treatment of C. lusitaniae-associated infections. In the past 10 years, there have
been major advances in antifungal susceptibility testing, as
illustrated by several methodology documents published by the National
Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards (NCCLS)
(11). Although standardized NCCLS methods and MIC
interpretive breakpoints are now available for azole and flucytosine
susceptibility testing of yeasts, amphotericin B testing is still under
investigation (4, 11). The methodology initially proposed
by the NCCLS, i.e., a broth macrodilution procedure using RPMI 1640 medium, did not consistently detect amphotericin B-resistant isolates,
nor does the microdilution format (17). Proposed
alternative media and methods include the use of antibiotic medium 3 (AM3) with the NCCLS method and/or the Etest predefined gradient
method to better discriminate between amphotericin B-susceptible and -resistant Candida isolates (16, 17, 19).
This study assessed the performance of Etest using both RPMI and AM3
agars for amphotericin B susceptibility testing of C. lusitaniae. Etest results were compared to results of the
NCCLS broth macrodilution method using AM3 broth. The challenge
panel of strains tested included nine strains known or presumed to be amphotericin B resistant on the basis of in vivo and/or in vitro data.
The collection of 47 clinical isolates used included 38 colonizing
isolates recovered from a variety of specimens from 37 patients,
immunocompromised and immunocompetent, who had not received antifungal
prophylaxis or treatment. These strains were considered putatively
susceptible to amphotericin B. Nine isolates were used to represent
amphotericin B-resistant strains. Three of them were kindly provided by
J. Rex (University of Texas Medical School, Houston). One isolate
(2887) was proven resistant in an animal model, and the other two
isolates (Y533 and Y534) were presumed resistant on the basis of in
vivo and in vitro data (17). The other six were selected
because the associated clinical data and results obtained by multiple
in vitro testing suggested resistance. They were obtained from stool
(6856-1 and 6856-2), blood (6-103), and urine (2-367, 679, and 787).
All but one (2-367) were recovered from patients during amphotericin B
prophylaxis or treatment. All isolates were identified to the species
level by the ID 32C biochemical system (bioMérieux, Marcy
l'Etoile, France). C. lusitaniae CBS 6936 was the
amphotericin B-susceptible reference strain, while Candida
tropicalis IP 1275-81 and C. albicans ATCC 38248 were used as amphotericin B-resistant reference strains. Candida parapsilosis ATCC 22019 was included in each test run to ensure quality control compliance. Strains were maintained on Sabouraud dextrose agar slants and stored at 4°C. Strains were subcultured twice on Sabouraud dextrose agar before being tested. The broth macrodilution procedure was done according to NCCLS M27-A
guidelines using AM3 broth (Difco Laboratories, Detroit, Mich.)
supplemented with 2% glucose (Difco) (11). MICs were read
at 24 and 48 h. The MIC was defined as the lowest drug concentration
preventing any visible growth. Etest (AB BIODISK, Solna, Sweden) was
used according to the manufacturer's recommendations (Etest technical guide number 4. Antifungal susceptibility of yeasts. AB BIODISK, Solna,
Sweden.) Two medium formulations supplemented with 2% glucose (Difco)
and 1.5% agar (Difco) were used: RPMI 1640 (American Bioorganics, Buffalo, N.Y.) and AM3 (Difco). The inoculum suspensions were adjusted
spectrophotometrically at 530 nm to match the turbidity of a 0.5 McFarland standard. Agar plates were inoculated with a cotton swab, and
they were allowed to dry for at least 15 min before the Etest strips
were applied. Etest agar plates were incubated at 35°C and read at
48 h. The lowest drug concentration on the Etest strip inhibiting
100% growth was defined as the MIC. A MIC breakpoint of
resistance of With Etest, a 48-h reading made it easy to select MICs and to visualize
macro- and microcolonies sometimes present within the
inhibition ellipse and around the endpoint, respectively (Fig. 1). MIC ranges obtained with Etest using
RPMI or AM3 agar were broader than those of the reference method (Fig.
2). With Etest using RPMI, amphotericin B
MIC ranges for the putatively susceptible and resistant isolates did
not overlap (Fig. 2A). All putatively resistant isolates were inhibited
by drug concentrations of
0095-1137/01/$04.00+0 DOI: 10.1128/JCM.39.1.339-342.2001
Copyright © 2001, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
Improved Detection of Amphotericin B-Resistant
Isolates of Candida lusitaniae by Etest
ABSTRACT
Top
Abstract
Text
References
0.38 µg/ml and could be categorized as resistant using this breakpoint. Etest with AM3 yielded a broader amphotericin B
MIC range (0.047 to 32 µg/ml), and there were six putatively resistant isolates for which MICs were >1 µg/ml. The separation of
putatively susceptible and resistant isolates was less obvious. Broth
macrodilution with AM3 generated a unimodal distribution of MICs
(ranging from 0.032 to 2 µg/ml) and failed to discriminate most of
the putatively resistant isolates at both 24 and 48 h. Etest
using RPMI and, to a lesser extent, using AM3 provided better discrimination between amphotericin B-resistant and -susceptible isolates of C. lusitaniae.
TEXT
Top
Abstract
Text
References
0.38 µg/ml was chosen for Etest with RPMI
(2). The reproducibilities of the Etest using RPMI and AM3
were determined by testing C. lusitaniae 2887, 6856-1, and 6856-2 in 10 experiments.
0.38 µg/ml and were easily categorized as
resistant to amphotericin B. AM3 agar used in the Etest generated an
upward shift of MICs by 1 to 2 dilutions, and the amphotericin B MICs
for six susceptible isolates were similar to those of three resistant
isolates (0.75 to 1 µg/ml) (Fig. 2B). The NCCLS method generated
a unimodal distribution of MICs, with a 2-dilution overlap for
putatively susceptible and resistant isolates (Fig. 2C). A similar
unimodal distribution, but with a 1-dilution overlap, was observed
after 24 h of incubation (data not shown). Table
1 outlines results from two experiments for the set of amphotericin B-resistant isolates and reference strains.
Whatever the test method, MICs for the two experiments were within 1 twofold dilution. For the four reference strains, resistance or
susceptibility to amphotericin B was detected by all three methods. For
the two resistant reference strains, the same high amphotericin B MICs
(16 µg/ml) were found with Etest on both media. Among clinical
isolates, only for C. lusitaniae 6856-2 were high
amphotericin B MICs found with Etest on both test media.
Regardless of the test method, results for C. lusitaniae Y534 were at the lower end of the MIC range for
the set of amphotericin B-resistant isolates. Percentage agreements
between Etest and the NCCLS method for susceptible and resistant
isolates are shown in Table 2. For the
susceptible isolates, the Etest results correlated well with the
reference MICs, whatever the test medium. For the resistant isolates,
the low agreements were due to low MICs by the NCCLS method and
high MICs by Etest. The reproducibilities of Etest using RPMI and AM3
were excellent, with 100% of MICs within ±1 dilution for the three
isolates tested (data not shown).
View larger version (111K):
[in a new window]
FIG. 1.
Etest amphotericin B reading pattern on RPMI for
C. lusitaniae. (A) Macrocolonies inside the
inhibition ellipse (MIC = 12 µg/ml); (B) microcolonies at
the endpoint (MIC = 0.125 µg/ml).
View larger version (29K):
[in a new window]
FIG. 2.
Distribution of amphotericin B MICs obtained by Etest
with RPMI (A), by Etest with AM3 (B), and by the broth macrodilution
method with AM3 (C) for 47 isolates of C. lusitaniae.
, resistant isolates;
,
susceptible isolates.
TABLE 1.
Ranges of MICs of amphotericin B by Etest with RPMI
and AM3 and by the NCCLS broth macrodilution method from two
separate experiments
TABLE 2.
Agreement between amphotericin B MICs for 47 C. lusitaniae isolates by Etest and NCCLS AM3
broth macrodilution
More than ever, the need for a reliable and clinically relevant method
for amphotericin B susceptibility testing of yeasts is important.
Previous studies have demonstrated that replacement of RPMI with AM3
broth for the NCCLS method and the Etest provided more clinically
significant amphotericin B results than did the standard reference
methodology (8, 16, 17, 19). This study provides
additional evidence of the superiority of Etest over the NCCLS
broth dilution method, even with AM3, for detection of resistance to
amphotericin B among isolates of C. lusitaniae (16, 19). Our results, however, are slightly different
from those of others who have shown that Etest performed similarly with
either RPMI medium or AM3 (16, 19). In our study, RPMI agar provided the best discrimination between putatively susceptible and resistant isolates of C. lusitaniae. All but one of
the putatively resistant isolates were consistently categorized as
amphotericin B resistant, with the interpretive breakpoint MIC of
0.38 µg/ml recently proposed by Clancy and Nguyen (2)
on the basis of MIC distribution stratified by response to therapy.
With Etest using AM3, MICs of amphotericin B for resistant isolates
were high but the separation of susceptible and resistant strains was incomplete. One possibility is that some susceptible C. lusitaniae isolates have intrinsically reduced susceptibility to
amphotericin B. The NCCLS reference method with AM3 broth failed to
discriminate susceptible and resistant isolates at either 24 or 48 h. The few studies that have evaluated the use of AM3 with the
NCCLS method have provided contradictory results, especially about
whether the MIC should be read after 24 or 48 h to better predict
microbiological failure (8, 10, 12, 17). Since AM3 is not
a standardized medium, the lot-to-lot and brand-to-brand variability
alone can give discrepant results (10, 11, 12).
In conclusion, this study confirms the findings of Pfaller et al. (16), who recommended the use of Etest with standardized RPMI medium supplemented with 2% glucose as the most sensitive and reliable means for detecting amphotericin B resistance. In spite of the drawbacks of AM3, the elevated Etest amphotericin B MICs for some susceptible C. lusitaniae isolates with AM3 should be further investigated by additional techniques to determine if the isolates have low-level intrinsic resistance or heteroresistance (14).
| |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
We thank AB BIODISK for providing the Etest strips and the RPMI 1640 agar plates.
| |
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Laboratoire de Botanique, Cryptogamie et Biologie Cellulaire, Faculté de Pharmacie, 27 Blvd. J. Moulin, 13005 Marseille Cedex 5, France. Phone: 33-4-91-83-56-37. Fax: 33-4-91-80-26-12. E-mail: Reglip{at}pharmacie.univ-mrs.fr.
| |
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
Top
Abstract
Text
References
|
|---|
| 1. | Alexander, B. D., and J. R. Perfect. 1997. Antifungal resistance trends towards the year 2000. Drugs 54:667-678. |
| 2. |
Clancy, C. J., and M. H. Nguyen.
1999.
Correlation between in vitro susceptibility determined by E test and response to therapy with amphotericin B: results from a multicenter prospective study of candidemia.
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.
43:1289-1290 |
| 3. | Conly, J., R. Rennie, J. Johnson, S. Farah, and L. Hellman. 1992. Disseminated candidiasis due to amphotericin B-resistant Candida albicans. J. Infect. Dis. 165:761-764[Medline]. |
| 4. | Espinel-Ingroff, A., F. Barchiesi, K. C. Hazen, J. V. Martinez-Suarez, and G. Scalise. 1998. Standardization of antifungal susceptibility testing and clinical relevance. Med. Mycol. 36:68-78. |
| 5. |
Favel, A.,
A. Michel-Nguyen,
C. Chastin,
F. Trousson,
A. Penaud, and P. Regli.
1997.
In-vitro susceptibility patterns of Candida lusitaniae isolates and evaluation of the Etest method.
J. Antimicrob. Chemother.
39:591-596 |
| 6. |
Guinet, R.,
J. Chanas,
A. Goullier,
G. Bonnefoy, and P. Ambroise-Thomas.
1983.
Fatal septicemia due to amphotericin B-resistant Candida lusitaniae.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
18:443-444 |
| 7. | Kauffman, C. A., and P. L. Carver. 1997. Antifungal agents in the 1990s. Current status and future developments. Drugs 53:539-549[Medline]. |
| 8. |
Law, D.,
C. B. Moore, and D. W. Denning.
1997.
Amphotericin B resistance testing of Candida spp.: a comparison of methods.
J. Antimicrob. Chemother.
40:109-112 |
| 9. |
Lewis, R. E., and M. E. Klepser.
1999.
The changing face of nosocomial candidemia: epidemiology, resistance, and drug therapy.
Am. J. Health-Syst. Pharm.
56:525-533 |
| 10. | Lozano-Chiu, M., P. W. Nelson, M. Lancaster, M. A. Pfaller, and J. H. Rex. 1997. Lot-to-lot variability of antibiotic medium 3 used for testing susceptibility of Candida isolates to amphotericin B. J. Clin. Microbiol. 35:270-272[Abstract]. |
| 11. | National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. 1997. Reference method for broth dilution antifungal susceptibility testing of yeasts. Approved standard, NCCLS document M27-A. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards, Wayne, Pa. |
| 12. | Nguyen, M. H., C. J. Clancy, V. L. Yu, Y. C. Yu, A. J. Morris, D. R. Snydman, D. A. Sutton, and M. G. Rinaldi. 1998. Do in vitro susceptibility data predict the microbiologic response to amphotericin B? Results of a prospective study of patients with Candida fungemia. J. Infect. Dis. 177:425-430[Medline]. |
| 13. | Nolte, F. S., T. Parkinson, D. J. Falconer, S. Dix, J. C. Williams, Gilmore, R. Geller, and J. R. Wingard. 1997. Isolation and characterization of fluconazole- and amphotericin B-resistant Candida albicans from blood of two patients with leukemia. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 41:196-199[Abstract]. |
| 14. | Peyron, F., A. Favel, H. Guiraud-Dauriac, M. El Mzibri, C. Chastin, G. Duménil, and P. Regli. 1997. Evaluation of a flow cytofluorometric method for rapid determination of amphotericin B susceptibility of yeast isolates. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 41:1537-1540[Abstract]. |
| 15. | Pfaller, M. A., M. A. Messer, and R. J. Hollis. 1994. Strain delineation and antifungal susceptibilities of epidemiologically related and unrelated isolates of Candida lusitaniae. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 20:127-133[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 16. | Pfaller, M. A., M. A. Messer, and A. Bolmström. 1998. Evaluation of Etest for determining in vitro susceptibility of yeast isolates to amphotericin B. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 32:223-227[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 17. | Rex, J. H., C. R. Cooper, Jr., W. G. Merz, J. N. Galgiani, and E. J. Anaissie. 1995. Detection of amphotericin B-resistant Candida isolates in a broth-based system. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 39:906-909[Abstract]. |
| 18. | Sterling, T. R., R. A. Gasser, and A. Ziegler. 1996. Emergence of resistance to amphotericin B during therapy for Candida glabrata infection in an immunocompetent host. Clin. Infect. Dis. 23:187-188[Medline]. |
| 19. | Wanger, A., K. Mills, P. W. Nelson, and J. H. Rex. 1995. Comparison of Etest and National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards broth macrodilution method for antifungal susceptibility testing: enhanced ability to detect amphotericin B-resistant Candida isolates. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 39:2520-2522[Abstract]. |
Journal of Clinical Microbiology, January 2001, p. 339-342, Vol. 39, No. 1
0095-1137/01/$04.00+0 DOI: 10.1128/JCM.39.1.339-342.2001
Copyright © 2001, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
This article has been cited by other articles:
-
Diekema, D. J., Messer, S. A., Boyken, L. B., Hollis, R. J., Kroeger, J., Tendolkar, S., Pfaller, M. A.
(2009). In Vitro Activity of Seven Systemically Active Antifungal Agents against a Large Global Collection of Rare Candida Species as Determined by CLSI Broth Microdilution Methods. J. Clin. Microbiol.
47: 3170-3177
[Abstract] [Full Text] -
Khan, Z. U., Al-Sweih, N. A., Ahmad, S., Al-Kazemi, N., Khan, S., Joseph, L., Chandy, R.
(2007). Outbreak of Fungemia among Neonates Caused by Candida haemulonii Resistant to Amphotericin B, Itraconazole, and Fluconazole. J. Clin. Microbiol.
45: 2025-2027
[Abstract] [Full Text] -
Pfaller, M. A., Diekema, D. J.
(2007). Epidemiology of Invasive Candidiasis: a Persistent Public Health Problem. Clin. Microbiol. Rev.
20: 133-163
[Abstract] [Full Text] -
Park, B. J., Arthington-Skaggs, B. A., Hajjeh, R. A., Iqbal, N., Ciblak, M. A., Lee-Yang, W., Hairston, M. D., Phelan, M., Plikaytis, B. D., Sofair, A. N., Harrison, L. H., Fridkin, S. K., Warnock, D. W.
(2006). Evaluation of amphotericin B interpretive breakpoints for Candida bloodstream isolates by correlation with therapeutic outcome.. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.
50: 1287-1292
[Abstract] [Full Text] -
Chaturvedi, V., Ramani, R., Rex, J. H.
(2004). Collaborative Study of Antibiotic Medium 3 and Flow Cytometry for Identification of Amphotericin B-Resistant Candida Isolates. J. Clin. Microbiol.
42: 2252-2254
[Abstract] [Full Text] -
Hajjeh, R. A., Sofair, A. N., Harrison, L. H., Lyon, G. M., Arthington-Skaggs, B. A., Mirza, S. A., Phelan, M., Morgan, J., Lee-Yang, W., Ciblak, M. A., Benjamin, L. E., Thomson Sanza, L., Huie, S., Yeo, S. F., Brandt, M. E., Warnock, D. W.
(2004). Incidence of Bloodstream Infections Due to Candida Species and In Vitro Susceptibilities of Isolates Collected from 1998 to 2000 in a Population-Based Active Surveillance Program. J. Clin. Microbiol.
42: 1519-1527
[Abstract] [Full Text] -
Favel, A., Michel-Nguyen, A., Datry, A., Challier, S., Leclerc, F., Chastin, C., Fallague, K., Regli, P.
(2004). Susceptibility of clinical isolates of Candida lusitaniae to five systemic antifungal agents. J Antimicrob Chemother
53: 526-529
[Abstract] [Full Text] -
Young, L. Y., Hull, C. M., Heitman, J.
(2003). Disruption of Ergosterol Biosynthesis Confers Resistance to Amphotericin B in Candida lusitaniae. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.
47: 2717-2724
[Abstract] [Full Text] -
Pfaller, M. A., Diekema, D. J., Messer, S. A., Boyken, L., Hollis, R. J., Jones, R. N.
(2003). In Vitro Activities of Voriconazole, Posaconazole, and Four Licensed Systemic Antifungal Agents against Candida Species Infrequently Isolated from Blood. J. Clin. Microbiol.
41: 78-83
[Abstract] [Full Text] -
Peyron, F., Favel, A., Calaf, R., Michel-Nguyen, A., Bonaly, R., Coulon, J.
(2002). Sterol and Fatty Acid Composition of Candida lusitaniae Clinical Isolates. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.
46: 531-533
[Abstract] [Full Text] -
Rex, J. H., Pfaller, M. A., Walsh, T. J., Chaturvedi, V., Espinel-Ingroff, A., Ghannoum, M. A., Gosey, L. L., Odds, F. C., Rinaldi, M. G., Sheehan, D. J., Warnock, D. W.
(2001). Antifungal Susceptibility Testing: Practical Aspects and Current Challenges. Clin. Microbiol. Rev.
14: 643-658
[Abstract] [Full Text]
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Microbiology. For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»