The impact of new epidemiological cutoff values on Candida glabrata resistance rates and concordance between testing methods
Abstract
Interpretive criteria for Candida susceptibility testing were recently revised with the establishment of species-specific epidemiological cutoff values (ECV). To assess the effect of modified cutoff values on Candida glabrata resistance rates and agreement between testing methods, we tested the susceptibility of 598 clinical isolates to fluconazole, itraconazole, voriconazole, posaconazole, caspofungin, and amphotericin B using CLSI M27-A3 and E-test methods. The caspofungin MICs clustered above the ECV and below the CLSI cutoff (MIC50, 0.5 μg/mL). Applying the ECV reduced the proportion of itraconazole-nonsusceptible strains from 83% to 0.3% but minimally affected resistance rates of other drugs. Categorical agreement between broth microdilution and E-test was increased for itraconazole and reduced for voriconazole and caspofungin. The current caspofungin ECV may not reproducibly differentiate resistant and susceptible C. glabrata strains in hospitals with varying MIC distributions.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Caspofungin is unreliable for MIC determination due to high interlaboratory variability.
“Caspofungin has been found to be unreliable for MIC determination due to high interlaboratory variability [33,34,35,36].”
From Treatment of Invasive Candidiasis: A Narrative Review (2018) · cites this paper as [33]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 27 · Cited by 12
- Authors
- Ben-Ami, R., Hilerowicz, Y., Novikov, A., & Giladi, M.
- Affiliations
- Tel Aviv University (IL)
- Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center (IL)
- Venue
- Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2014-06
- Volume
- 79
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 209-213
- ISSN
- 0732-8893 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2092156735
- Cited by
- 12
- References
- 27
- Citations by year
- 2023: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 1.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Pfizer Pharmaceuticals
- 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 › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Yeasts and Rust Fungi Studies
- Keywords
- Candida glabrata, epidemiological cut-off values, antifungal susceptibility testing, itraconazole resistance, caspofungin, voriconazole, fluconazole, posaconazole, amphotericin B, interpretation criteria, measurement agreement, clinical isolates, MIC distribution
- MeSH terms
- Antifungal Agents, Candidiasis, Female, Humans, Male, Microbial Sensitivity Tests, Reproducibility of Results, Prevalence, Drug Resistance, Fungal, Candida glabrata
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