Cited by 130Antifungal resistance and susceptibilityBacterial Identification and Susceptibility TestingFungal Plant Pathogen Control

Clinical breakpoints for voriconazole and Candida spp. revisited: review of microbiologic, molecular, pharmacodynamic, and clinical data as they pertain to the development of species-specific interpretive criteria

Pfaller, Michael A., Andes, David, Arendrup, Maiken C., Diekema, Daniel J., Espinel-Ingroff, Ana, Alexander, Barbara D., Brown, Steven D., Chaturvedi, Vishnu +7 more·2011·Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease

Abstract

We reassessed the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) clinical breakpoints (CBPs) for voriconazole. We examined i) the essential (EA: ±2 dilutions) and categorical agreement between 24-h CLSI and EUCAST methods for voriconazole testing of Candida, ii) wild-type (WT) MICs and epidemiologic cutoff values (ECVs) for voriconazole by both CLSI and EUCAST methods, and iii) correlation of MICs with outcomes from previously published data using CLSI methods. We applied these findings to propose new 24-h species-specific CLSI CBPs. Adjusted 24-h CBPs for voriconazole and C. albicans, C. tropicalis, and C. parapsilosis (susceptible, ≤ 0.125 μg/mL; intermediate, 0.25-0.5 μg/mL; resistant, ≥ 1 μg/mL) should be more sensitive for detecting emerging resistance among common Candida species and provide consistency with EUCAST CBPs. In the absence of CBPs for voriconazole and C. glabrata (and less common species), we recommend that their respective ECVs be used to detect the emergence of non-WT strains.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2011.03.002

Cites

70 of 70 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pfaller, M. A., Andes, D., Arendrup, M. C., Diekema, D. J., Espinel-Ingroff, A., Alexander, B. D., Brown, S. D., Chaturvedi, V., Fowler, C. L., Ghannoum, M. A., Johnson, E. M., Knapp, C. C., Motyl, M. R., Ostrosky-Zeichner, L., & Walsh, T. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Iowa (US)
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
  • Statens Serum Institut (DK)
  • Duke University (US)
  • New York State Department of Health (US)
  • bioMérieux (United States) (US)
  • Case Western Reserve University (US)
  • Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA (United States) (US)
  • Cornell University (US)
Corresponding author
Pfaller, Michael A.
Venue
Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-07
Volume
70
Issue
3
Pages
330-343
ISSN
0732-8893 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2129135057
Cited by
130
References
70
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 29
FWCI
15.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Antifungal resistance and susceptibility
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Clinical Biochemistry › Bacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Fungal Plant Pathogen Control
Keywords
voriconazole, clinical breakpoints, Candida, antifungal susceptibility testing, Candida albicans, Candida tropicalis, Candida parapsilosis, Candida glabrata
MeSH terms
Antifungal Agents, Candida, Candidiasis, Humans, Microbial Sensitivity Tests, Pyrimidines, Triazoles, Voriconazole

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review