Skip to main page content

• HOME
• Current Issue
• Archive
• Alerts
• About ASM
• Contact us
• Tech Support
• Journals.ASM.org

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Reprints and Permissions Copyright Information Books from ASM Press MicrobeWorld Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Espinel-Ingroff, A. Articles by Verweij, P. E. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Espinel-Ingroff, A. Articles by Verweij, P. E.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, August 2005, p. 3884-3889, Vol. 43, No. 8
0095-1137/05/$08.00+0     doi:10.1128/JCM.43.8.3884-3889.2005
Copyright © 2005, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

International and Multicenter Comparison of EUCAST and CLSI M27-A2 Broth Microdilution Methods for Testing Susceptibilities of Candida spp. to Fluconazole, Itraconazole, Posaconazole, and Voriconazole

A. Espinel-Ingroff,^1* F. Barchiesi,² M. Cuenca-Estrella,³ M. A. Pfaller,⁴ M. Rinaldi,⁵ J. L. Rodriguez-Tudela,³ and P. E. Verweij⁶

VCU Medical Center, Richmond, Virginia,¹ Public Health, Ancona, Italy,² Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Majadahonda, Spain,³ University of Iowa College of Medicine, Iowa City, Iowa,⁴ University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, Texas,⁵ Medical Center Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands⁶

Received 14 February 2005/ Returned for modification 11 April 2005/ Accepted 20 May 2005

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
The aim of this study was to compare MICs of fluconazole, itraconazole, posaconazole, and voriconazole obtained by the European Committee on Antibiotic Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) and CLSI (formerly NCCLS) methods in each of six centers for 15 Candida albicans (5 fluconazole-resistant and 4 susceptible-dose-dependent [S-DD] isolates), 10 C. dubliniensis, 7 C. glabrata (2 fluconazole-resistant isolates), 5 C. guilliermondii (2 fluconazole-resistant isolates), 10 C. krusei, 9 C. lusitaniae, 10 C. parapsilosis, and 5 C. tropicalis (1 fluconazole-resistant isolate) isolates. CLSI MICs were obtained visually at 24 and 48 h and spectrophotometric EUCAST MICs at 24 h. The agreement (within a 3-dilution range) between the methods was species, drug, and incubation time dependent and due to lower EUCAST than CLSI MICs: overall, 94 to 95% with fluconazole and voriconazole and 90 to 91% with posaconazole and itraconazole when EUCAST MICs were compared against 24-h CLSI results. The agreement was lower (85 to 94%) against 48-h CLSI endpoints. The overall interlaboratory reproducibility by each method was 92%. When the comparison was based on CLSI breakpoint categorization, the agreement was 68 to 76% for three of the four species that included fluconazole-resistant and S-DD isolates; 9% very major discrepancies (8 µg/ml versus 64 µg/ml) were observed among fluconazole-resistant isolates and 50% with voriconazole (1 µg/ml versus 4 µg/ml). Similar results were observed with itraconazole for seven of the eight species evaluated (28 to 77% categorical agreement). Posaconazole EUCAST MICs were also substantially lower than CLSI MIC modes (0.008 to 1 µg/ml versus 1 to 8 µg/ml) for some of these isolates. Therefore, the CLSI breakpoints should not be used to interpret EUCAST MIC data.

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
Candida spp. and Aspergillus spp. are responsible for the majority (80 to 90%) of fungal infections. During the last two years, two new antifungal agents (the echinocandin caspofungin and the triazole voriconazole) have been licensed for the systemic treatment of fungal infections. Other triazoles (posaconazole and ravuconazole) and echinocandins (anidulafungin and micafungin) are undergoing phase III clinical trials. The increasing number of fungal infections and new antifungal agents has underscored the need for testing the antifungal susceptibilities of fungal pathogens to these agents. The Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI; formerly the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards [NCCLS]) has developed a reference method (CLSI [formerly NCCLS] M27-A2 document) for antifungal susceptibility testing of Candida spp. and Cryptococcus neoformans (6). Agreement has been demonstrated between CLSI results and those obtained by a broth microdilution method with the following testing guidelines (1-3, 8-10): (i) RPMI 1640 with 2% dextrose medium to enhance the growth of yeast cells; (ii) an inoculum size of 0.5 x 10⁵ to 2.5 x 10⁵ CFU/ml; (iii) flat-bottom microdilution trays; and (iv) 24-h spectrophotometric MICs. Based on those studies, the European Committee on Antibiotic Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) has proposed a broth microdilution method for testing fermentative yeasts that incorporates the above testing guidelines (4). However, the utility of CLSI fluconazole, voriconazole, and itraconazole breakpoints for interpreting EUCAST MICs has not been evaluated.

The purposes of the present study were (i) to compare EUCAST and reference CLSI MICs of fluconazole, itraconazole, posaconazole, and voriconazole for 71 Candida isolates; (ii) to assess the reproducibility among six laboratories of MIC results obtained by each method; (iii) to determine the utility of CLSI fluconazole, itraconazole, and voriconazole breakpoints for EUCAST MIC data; and (iv) to identify substantial differences (>3 dilutions) between the methods for posaconazole MICs. Five to 15 isolates of Candida albicans, C. dubliniensis, C. glabrata, C. guilliermondii, C. krusei, C. lusitaniae, C. parapsilosis, and C. tropicalis were evaluated in each center.

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
Study design. The study was designed to compare MICs obtained by the proposed EUCAST microdilution method (4) with those obtained by the CLSI (formerly NCCLS) reference M27-A2 broth microdilution method (6) in six independent laboratories. Each laboratory tested the same panel of 71 coded isolates of Candida spp. (Tables 1, 2, and 3) and the two quality control (QC) isolates with four agents by each broth microdilution method following a standard protocol. This protocol included the susceptibility testing guidelines described in the CLSI (formerly NCCLS) M27-A2 document and those recommended by the EUCAST Subcommittee (document 7.1) (4, 6). Two MIC readings were performed by the reference method, i.e., at 24 and 48 h. Each first and second day, CLSI MICs for each isolate-drug combination were compared to EUCAST MICs (24 h). In addition, the interlaboratory reproducibility of EUCAST and reference MIC results as well as categorical differences of MIC endpoints between the methods were determined.

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]

TABLE 1. Agreement between EUCAST and CLSI MICs for Candida spp. in six laboratoriesa

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]

TABLE 2. Agreement between EUCAST and CLSI fluconazole and itraconazole MICs according to CLSI breakpoint categorization for Candida spp. in six laboratoriesa

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]

TABLE 3. Substantially discrepant posaconazole EUCAST MICs compared to CLSI resultsa

Clinical isolates. A total of 71 isolates from the culture collection of the University of Iowa College of Medicine included 15 Candida albicans (5 fluconazole-resistant and 4 susceptible-dose-dependent [S-DD] isolates), 10 C. dubliniensis, 7 C. glabrata (2 fluconazole-resistant isolates), 5 C. guilliermondii (2 fluconazole-resistant isolates), 10 C. krusei, 9 C. lusitaniae, 10 C. parapsilosis, and 5 C. tropicalis (1 fluconazole-resistant isolate) isolates. The CLSI QC isolates, Candida krusei ATCC 6258 and Candida parapsilosis ATCC 22019, also were tested each time a set of clinical isolates was evaluated by the two procedures (4, 6). The set of isolates also included strains with different susceptibility patterns to voriconazole and posaconazole. Each isolate represented a unique strain from a single patient and was maintained in sterile water and subcultured onto antimicrobial-free medium to ensure viability and purity prior to testing.

Antifungal agents. EUCAST and CLSI reference microdilution plates containing serial drug dilutions of posaconazole (Schering-Plough Research Institute, Kenilworth, N.J.), voriconazole (Pfizer Central Research, New York, N.Y.), and the established triazoles fluconazole (Pfizer Central Research) and itraconazole (Janssen, Beerse, Belgium) were prepared by TREK Diagnostic Systems (Cleveland, OH) following the CLSI M27-A2 and EUCAST guidelines (4, 6), shipped frozen to each laboratory, and stored at –70°C until the day of the test. Voriconazole and itraconazole drug dilutions ranged from 0.008 to 16 µg/ml, posaconazole from 0.004 to 8 µg/ml, and fluconazole from 0.12 to 128 µg/ml in both reference and EUCAST microdilution plates.

Stock inoculum preparation. Stock inoculum suspensions of the yeasts were prepared in sterile saline (8.5 g/liter) NaCl from 24-h cultures on Sabouraud dextrose agar at 35°C. The turbidity of each yeast suspension was adjusted by the spectrophotometric method (6).

CLSI broth microdilution method (M27-A2 document). U-bottom microdilution plates containing 100 µl of the twofold serial dilutions of the antifungal drugs in standard RPMI 1640 medium (0.2% glucose) were inoculated with 100 µl of inoculum containing between 1.0 x 10³ and 5 x 10³ CFU/ml. Following inoculation of the reference microdilution plates, they were incubated at 35°C in a non-CO₂ incubator, and MICs were determined after 24 and 48 h. Reference MICs corresponded to the lowest drug dilution that showed prominent growth inhibition (50% or more) (6). QC isolates were tested in the same manner in each participant laboratory.

Proposed EUCAST broth microdilution method. Flat-bottom microdilution plates containing 100 µl of the twofold serial dilutions of the antifungal drugs in double-strength RPMI 1640 medium (2% glucose) were inoculated with 100 µl of inoculum containing between 0.5 x 10⁵ and 2.5 x 10⁵ CFU/ml. The microdilution plates were incubated at 35°C in a non-CO₂ incubator, and MICs were determined after 24 h; microdilution plates were reincubated if the optical density was 0.5 (indicative of poor growth) and read after the second day of incubation. MICs were determined with a spectrophotometer at a wavelength in the range of 530 to 550 nm. EUCAST MICs corresponded to the lowest drug dilution that showed a reduction of growth of 50% or more compared with the growth control (4). QC isolates were tested in the same manner in each participant laboratory.

Statistical analysis. Both on-scale (e.g., 0.12 and 128 µg/ml) and off-scale (i.e., <0.12 and >128 µg/ml) MICs were included in the analysis. For the comparison between the two methods, MICs of each drug-organism combination obtained by each method in the six laboratories were compared as follows: (i) 24-h MIC pairs by both methods and (ii) EUCAST MICs versus CLSI 48-h MICs. Values were considered in agreement when the discrepancies between the methods were no more than 2 log₂ dilutions. The reproducibility of the results obtained by the six laboratories was evaluated by determining the percent agreement between MICs that were within 3 dilutions (e.g., 0.25, 0.5, and 1 µg/ml) as well by intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for converted log₂ MICs. In addition, because the EUCAST Subcommittee has not yet established breakpoints, the interpretive CLSI criteria (M27-A2 document) were used to evaluate the agreement between EUCAST and CLSI results for fluconazole and itraconazole data regarding these interpretative criteria (6). Tentative interpretive breakpoints have recently been established for voriconazole (personal communication, CLSI Subcommittee, January 2005 meeting) but are not available for posaconazole. Therefore, substantial differences (4 or more dilutions) between the methods were also identified for the latter agent.

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
Three readings were obtained for each isolate with the four antifungal agents in each of the six centers. A total of 852 readings in each center for the 71 isolates, or 5,112 readings from the six centers, were reported. All isolates had sufficient growth for MIC determination using the EUCAST medium, but 20 of 421 laboratory reports (for each drug) were documented as no growth at 24 h with the standard medium. However, 35% of these documentations originated from the same laboratory, and nine of them were for Candida dubliniensis.

Table 1 lists the percentages of agreement between the two methods for the eight Candida spp. evaluated as well as the percentages of interlaboratory reproducibility for each method. These percentages represent agreement in MIC results of no more than 2 log₂ dilutions, regardless of breakpoint classification. The agreement between the methods was usually higher when testing fluconazole and voriconazole (92 to 95% overall agreement; ICCs, 0.73 to 0.95) than when testing the other two triazoles (85 to 91% overall agreement; ICCs, 0.56 to 0.93). The compatibility of EUCAST with CLSI MICs was slightly higher with 24-h results than with 48-h results (90 to 95% versus 85 to 94%, respectively). The lowest percentages of agreement were observed for isolates of C. albicans, C. glabrata, and C. tropicalis. The interlaboratory agreements among the six laboratories of results obtained by each method were similar (92 to 95% EUCAST versus 93 to 97% CLSI); the lowest percentages of interlaboratory reproducibility of EUCAST MICs were observed for isolates of C. glabrata and C. krusei (86 to 88%) when testing itraconazole and posaconazole and of the CLSI method when testing itraconazole and voriconazole against C. albicans and C. glabrata (81 and 86%, respectively).

Table 2 depicts the percentages of agreement between CLSI 48-h and EUCAST MICs regarding the categorical data established by the CLSI for fluconazole and itraconazole (6). Low rates of agreement were shown for four of the species that included either resistant or S-DD isolates (68 to 90% agreement with fluconazole and 28 to 77% with itraconazole), because EUCAST MICs were substantially and consistently lower than CLSI results. The agreement was good (96 to 100%) for C. dubliniensis, C. lusitaniae, C. parapsilosis, and C. tropicalis. In the majority of the cases, the EUCAST method categorized an isolate as either susceptible or S-DD, while by the CLSI method the isolate belonged to either the S-DD or resistant categories, respectively. However, major discrepancies (9%) were also observed where five fluconazole EUCAST susceptible values were obtained among 58 CLSI resistant MICs. Similar results were obtained with itraconazole, but the percentages of agreement were lower (32 to 73%) for most of the species.

With voriconazole, 18 susceptible MICs (1 µg/ml) were obtained by the EUCAST method among 36 resistant values (4 µg/ml) by the reference method. Substantially lower EUCAST than CLSI MICs were also documented for three isolates of C. albicans, C. glabrata, and C. tropicalis for which CLSI posaconazole mode MICs were >1 µg/ml (Table 3). The majority (90%) of posaconazole MICs were 1 µg/ml for 5 of the 10 fluconazole-resistant isolates compared to 9% by the EUCAST method.

Table 4 depicts the susceptibilities of the 71 isolates to the four agents in the six laboratories by both methods. In general, MICs by both methods appear to be similar, as demonstrated by the wide MIC range for certain species and drug combinations. However, in some instances for the species that included fluconazole-resistant isolates, fluconazole and itraconazole MICs at which 90% of the isolates tested were inhibited (MIC₉₀s) were in the S-DD category, while the CLSI corresponding results were in the resistant category. Although posaconazole and voriconazole MIC₉₀s were within 1 dilution between the two methods for most of the species, CLSI MIC₉₀s for C. albicans, C. glabrata, and C. guilliermondii tended to be 2 µg/ml, while EUCAST MICs were 1 µg/ml.

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]

TABLE 4. Fluconazole, itraconazole, posaconazole, and voriconazole EUCAST and CLSI MIC data for Candida isolatesa

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
This is the first study that has compared in six laboratories EUCAST and CLSI MIC results for a large number of isolates with well-documented interpretative MIC endpoints. In addition, we compared EUCAST results to CLSI MICs obtained at both 24 and 48 h. The availability of the CLSI (formerly NCCLS) M27-A2 method (6) led to the development of more objective, practical, and faster alternative methods for use in the routine clinical laboratory. For this purpose, the EUCAST Subcommittee has proposed the supplementation of the reference RPMI 1640 medium with 2% of dextrose in order to obtain a superior turbidity in the growth control well and thus shorten the MIC determination to 24 h (2, 5, 8, 10). In our study, the reference medium also supported sufficient growth at 24 h, since MICs for most isolates were obtained from each center (92 to 100%) at this incubation time. Nguyen and Yu (7) have reported similar results. Among the species, the longer incubation time may be required for isolates of C. dubliniensis, because 35% of the no-growth reports were for this species; other than that, MICs were readily determined at 24 h by both methods. A shorter reporting time of MICs by the CLSI method represents a significant improvement in the performance of this method.

The agreement between the methods was dependent on the species, the antifungal agent, and the incubation time used to determine the CLSI results. The highest agreements were observed with fluconazole and voriconazole. Three previous studies have evaluated the compatibility between EUCAST and CLSI microdilution methods in one to two laboratories (1-3). Although similarly good reproducibility (overall, 92 to 99%) has been reported with fluconazole, itraconazole, and voriconazole (1, 2), in another study (3), the reproducibility was lower with itraconazole (78 to 81%) and for C. tropicalis with fluconazole (88%). In our study, itraconazole MICs also yielded the lowest agreement between the methods (Table 1). Results with posaconazole were adequate but had consistently lower agreement (79 to 100%) than that obtained with fluconazole and voriconazole, which is not surprising, since this antifungal is more closely related to itraconazole than to fluconazole. Comparisons of the two methods with posaconazole have not been reported. Among the species, the lowest percentages of reproducibility between the methods were observed for C. albicans, C. krusei, and C. tropicalis with either itraconazole, posaconazole, or both. Cuenca-Estrella et al. (3) also found low (88%) reproducibility between the methods for C. tropicalis versus fluconazole.

The interlaboratory reproducibility of each method among the six laboratories was mostly good to excellent (Table 1). Similar results were obtained among nine laboratories (4) with fluconazole for six of eight isolates of Candida spp. (98 to 100%) and for all isolates with itraconazole (85 to 93%). When testing fluconazole, the lowest interlaboratory agreement of EUCAST MICs (83%) was for the C. glabrata isolate (4), while in our study, the agreement was 95% for this species.

Antimicrobial susceptibility testing should not only provide reproducible data butalso identify isolates that are potentially resistant to the agent being evaluated. Because of that, we included 10 strains, among the different species, that have been classified by the CLSI method as resistant to fluconazole (MICs, 64 µg/ml). These fluconazole results were duplicated by the six laboratories by the CLSI method, but three EUCAST results were 8 µg/ml (susceptible values); the same applied for isolates that were categorized as itraconazole resistant by the CLSI method. Similar categorical discrepancies between these two methods have been reported by Cuenca-Estrella et al. (3) with both fluconazole (C. parapsilosis and C. glabrata) and itraconazole (C. glabrata, C. krusei, and C. tropicalis). Because in our study major categorical discrepancies were not observed with 24-h CLSI MICs, the higher carbohydrate content in the RPMI 1640 could be responsible for the lowering of EUCAST results. Since EUCAST MICs were consistently the lower values and trays were not shaken prior to the spectrophotometric reading, it is possible that the unusually elevated EUCAST results (0.5%) were caused by the presence of air bubbles in the MIC wells, as has been demonstrated in our laboratory (personal communication).

Interpretative breakpoints are not available for posaconazole, but tentative MIC breakpoints of 1 µg/ml (susceptible) and 4 µg/ml (resistant) have been recently established for voriconazole (personal communication, CLSI Subcommittee, January 2005 meeting). In our study, 50% of voriconazole resistant MICs corresponded to susceptible values by the EUCAST method; these could be considered very major errors. EUCAST MICs substantially lower than CLSI MICs have been previously reported for C. glabrata with voriconazole (MIC₉₀s of 0.5 and 4 µg/ml, respectively) and for C. parapsilosis with caspofungin (MIC ranges, 0.5 to 2 and 0.5 to >16 µg/ml, respectively) (1). Although the two methods have not been compared for testing posaconazole, a similar trend was observed with this agent for some isolates (Table 4).

In conclusion, results of this study and previous comparisons of both methods indicate that EUCAST MICs of the triazoles are consistently lower than those obtained with the CLSI reference method. Because these lower EUCAST values also reflect substantial categorical shifting, including major discrepant results, the CLSI breakpoints do not appear to be useful for the categorical interpretation of EUCAST MIC data. Therefore, it is not recommended to provide interpretive MIC results when reporting EUCAST in vitro data until breakpoints have been established for EUCAST methodology.

 
This study was partially supported by grants from both Pfizer and Schering.

We thank Mercedes Ramirez and Ana L. Rodriguez for their technical assistance.

 
* Corresponding author. Mailing address: VCU Medical Center, Medical Mycology Research Laboratory, 1101 E. Marshall St., Sanger Hall Room 7049, P. O. Box 980049, Richmond, VA 23298-0049. Phone: (804) 828-9711. Fax: (804) 828-3097. E-mail: avingrof{at}hsc.vcu.edu.

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 

1
1. Chryssanthou, E., and M. Cuenca-Estrella. 2002. Comparison of the Antifungal Susceptibility Testing Subcommittee of the European Committee on Antibiotic Susceptibility Testing proposed standard and the E-test with NCCLS broth microdilution method for voriconazole and caspofungin susceptibility testing of yeast species. J. Clin. Microbiol. 40:3841-3844.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
2
2. Cuenca-Estrella, M., T. M. Diaz-Guerra, E. Mellado, and J. L. Rodriguez-Tudela. 2001. Influence of glucose supplementation and inoculum size on growth kinetics and antifungal susceptibility testing of Candida spp. J. Clin. Microbiol. 39:525-532.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
3
3. Cuenca-Estrella, M., W. Lee-Yang, M. A. Ciblak, B. A. Arthington-Skaggs, E. Mellado, D. N. Warnock, and J. L. Rodriguez-Tudela. 2002. Comparative evaluation of NCCLS M27-A and EUCAST broth microdilution procedures for antifungal susceptibility testing of Candida species. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 46:3644-3647.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
4
4. Cuenca-Estrella, M., C. B. Moore, F. Barchiesi, J. Bille, E. Chryssanthou, D. W. Denning, J. P. Donnelly, F. Dromer, B. Dupont, J. H. Rex, M. D. Richardson, B. Sancak, P. E. Verweij, J. L. Rodríguez-Tudela, and the AFST Subcommittee of the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. 2003. Multicenter evaluation of the reproducibility of the proposed antifungal susceptibility method for fermentative yeasts of the Antifungal Susceptibility Testing Subcommittee of the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (AFST-EUCAST). Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 9:467-474.[CrossRef][Medline]
5
5. Espinel-Ingroff, A., J. L. Rodriguez-Tudela, and J. V. Martinez-Suarez. 1995. Comparison of two alternative microdilution procedures with the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards reference macrodilution method M27-P for in vitro testing of fluconazole-resistant and -susceptible isolates of Candida albicans. J. Clin. Microbiol. 33:3154-3158.[Abstract]
6
6. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. 2002. Reference method for broth dilution antifungal susceptibility testing of yeasts. Approved standard, 2nd ed. M27-A2. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards, Wayne, Pa.
7
7. Nguyen, M. H., and C. Y. Yu. 1999. Influence of incubation time, inoculum size, and glucose concentrations on spectrophotometric endpoint determinations for amphotericin B, fluconazole, and itraconazole. J. Clin. Microbiol. 37:141-145.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
8
8. Polanco, A. M., J. L. Rodriguez-Tudela, F. Baquero, A. Sanchez-Sousa, and J. V. Martinez-Suarez. 1995. Improved method of determining the susceptibility of Candida albicans to fluconazole. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 35:155-159.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
9
9. Rodriguez-Tudela, J. L., J. V. Martinez-Suarez, F. Dronda, F. Laguna, F. Chaves, and E. Valencia. 1995. Correlation of in vitro susceptibility test results with clinical response: a study of azole therapy in AIDS patients. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 35:793-804.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
10
10. Rodriguez-Tudela, J. L., M. Cuenca-Estrella, T. M. Diaz-Guerra, and E. Mellado. 2001. Standardization of antifungal susceptibility variables for a semiautomated methodology. J. Clin. Microbiol. 39:2513-2517.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

---

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, August 2005, p. 3884-3889, Vol. 43, No. 8
0095-1137/05/$08.00+0     doi:10.1128/JCM.43.8.3884-3889.2005
Copyright © 2005, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Espinel-Ingroff, A., Canton, E., Peman, J., Rinaldi, M. G., Fothergill, A. W. (2009). Comparison of 24-Hour and 48-Hour Voriconazole MICs as Determined by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute Broth Microdilution Method (M27-A3 Document) in Three Laboratories: Results Obtained with 2,162 Clinical Isolates of Candida spp. and Other Yeasts. J. Clin. Microbiol. 47: 2766-2771 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Posteraro, B., Martucci, R., La Sorda, M., Fiori, B., Sanglard, D., De Carolis, E., Florio, A. R., Fadda, G., Sanguinetti, M. (2009). Reliability of the Vitek 2 Yeast Susceptibility Test for Detection of In Vitro Resistance to Fluconazole and Voriconazole in Clinical Isolates of Candida albicans and Candida glabrata. J. Clin. Microbiol. 47: 1927-1930 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Pfaller, M. A., Boyken, L. B., Hollis, R. J., Kroeger, J., Messer, S. A., Tendolkar, S., Diekema, D. J. (2008). Validation of 24-Hour Fluconazole MIC Readings versus the CLSI 48-Hour Broth Microdilution Reference Method: Results from a Global Candida Antifungal Surveillance Program. J. Clin. Microbiol. 46: 3585-3590 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Guo, Q., Sun, S., Yu, J., Li, Y., Cao, L. (2008). Synergistic activity of azoles with amiodarone against clinically resistant Candida albicans tested by chequerboard and time-kill methods. J Med Microbiol 57: 457-462 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Cuenca-Estrella, M., Gomez-Lopez, A., Gutierrez, M. O., Buitrago, M. J., Rodriguez-Tudela, J. L. (2008). Reliability of the WIDERYST Susceptibility Testing System for Detection of In Vitro Antifungal Resistance in Yeasts. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 52: 1062-1065 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Pfaller, M. A., Diekema, D. J., Procop, G. W., Rinaldi, M. G. (2007). Multicenter Comparison of the VITEK 2 Antifungal Susceptibility Test with the CLSI Broth Microdilution Reference Method for Testing Amphotericin B, Flucytosine, and Voriconazole against Candida spp.. J. Clin. Microbiol. 45: 3522-3528 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Chauhan, N., Kruppa, M., Calderone, R. (2007). The Ssk1p Response Regulator and Chk1p Histidine Kinase Mutants of Candida albicans Are Hypersensitive to Fluconazole and Voriconazole. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 51: 3747-3751 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Pfaller, M. A., Diekema, D. J., Procop, G. W., Rinaldi, M. G. (2007). Multicenter Comparison of the VITEK 2 Yeast Susceptibility Test with the CLSI Broth Microdilution Reference Method for Testing Fluconazole against Candida spp.. J. Clin. Microbiol. 45: 796-802 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Coen, M., Bodkin, J., Power, D., Bubb, W. A., Himmelreich, U., Kuchel, P. W., Sorrell, T. C. (2006). Antifungal Effects on Metabolite Profiles of Medically Important Yeast Species Measured by Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 50: 4018-4026 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Dias, A. L. T., Matsumoto, F. E., Melhem, M. S. C., da Silva, E. G., Auler, M. E., de Siqueira, A. M., Paula, C. R. (2006). Comparative analysis of Etest and broth microdilution method (AFST-EUCAST) for trends in antifungal drug susceptibility testing of Brazilian Cryptococcus neoformans isolates.. J Med Microbiol 55: 1693-1699 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Perkins, A., Gomez-Lopez, A., Mellado, E., Rodriguez-Tudela, J. L., Cuenca-Estrella, M. (2005). Rates of antifungal resistance among Spanish clinical isolates of Cryptococcus neoformans var. neoformans. J Antimicrob Chemother 56: 1144-1147 [Abstract] [Full Text]  

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Reprints and Permissions Copyright Information Books from ASM Press MicrobeWorld Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Espinel-Ingroff, A. Articles by Verweij, P. E. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Espinel-Ingroff, A. Articles by Verweij, P. E.