Cited by 270Antifungal resistance and susceptibilityFungal Plant Pathogen ControlYeasts and Rust Fungi Studies

Comparison of EUCAST and CLSI Reference Microdilution MICs of Eight Antifungal Compounds for Candida auris and Associated Tentative Epidemiological Cutoff Values

Open access
Arendrup, M. C., Prakash, Anupam, Meletiadis, Joseph, Sharma, Cheshta, Chowdhary, Anuradha·2017·Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy

Abstract

Candida auris is an emerging multidrug-resistant yeast. So far, all but two susceptibility testing studies have examined ≤50 isolates, mostly with the CLSI method. We investigated CLSI and EUCAST MICs for 123 C. auris isolates and eight antifungals and evaluated various methods for epidemiological cutoff (ECOFF) determinations. MICs (in milligrams per liter) were determined using CLSI method M27-A3, and the EUCAST E.Def 7.3. ANOVA analysis of variance with Bonferroni's multiple-comparison test and Pearson analysis were used on log 2 MICs (significance at P values of <0.05). The percent agreement (within ±0 to ±2 2-fold dilutions) between the methods was calculated. ECOFFs were determined visually, statistically (using the ECOFF Finder program and MicDat1.23 software with 95% to 99% endpoints), and via the derivatization method (dECOFFs). The CLSI and EUCAST MIC distributions were wide, with several peaks for all compounds except amphotericin B, suggesting possible acquired resistance. Modal MIC, geometric MIC, MIC 50 , and MIC 90 values were ≤1 2-fold dilutions apart, and no significant differences were found. The quantitative agreement was best for amphotericin B (80%/97% within ±1/±2 dilutions) and lowest for isavuconazole and anidulafungin (58%/76% to 75% within ±1/±2 dilutions). We found that 90.2%/100% of the isolates were amphotericin B susceptible based on CLSI/EUCAST methods, respectively (i.e., with MICs of ≤1 mg/liter), and 100%/97.6% were fluconazole nonsusceptible by CLSI/EUCAST (MICs > 2). The ECOFFs (in milligrams per liter) were similar across the three different methods for itraconazole (ranges for CLSI/EUCAST, 0.25 to 0.5/0.5 to 1), posaconazole (0.125/0.125 to 0.25), amphotericin B (0.25 to 0.5/1 to 2), micafungin (0.25 to 0.5), and anidulafungin (0.25 to 0.5/0.25 to 1). In contrast, the estimated ECOFFs were dependent on the method applied for voriconazole (1 to 32) and isavuconazole (0.125 to 4). CLSI and EUCAST MICs were remarkably similar and confirmed uniform fluconazole resistance and variable acquired resistance to the other agents.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1128/aac.00485-17

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The pitavastatin-fluconazole interactions were not sufficient to restore fluconazole activity in several fluconazole-resistant isolates; two C. albicans and four C. auris isolates maintained their resistance profiles to fluconazole.

    “Of note, although pitavastatin was able to demonstrate broad-spectrum synergistic interactions with fluconazole, these interactions were not sufficient to restore the antifungal activity of fluconazole in several fluconazole-resistant isolates. Considering the current resistance breakpoints for azole drugs, two C. albicans and four C. auris isolates maintained their resistance profiles to fluconaz”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 27 · Cited by 270

Authors
Arendrup, M. C., Prakash, A., Meletiadis, J., Sharma, C., & Chowdhary, A.
Affiliations
  • Statens Serum Institut (DK)
  • University of Delhi (IN)
  • National and Kapodistrian University of Athens (GR)
Venue
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
Published
2017-06
Volume
61
Issue
6
ISSN
  • 0066-4804 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-6596
OpenAlex
W2606900189
Cited by
270
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 41 · 2018: 34 · 2017: 16
FWCI
25.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
Funders
University Grants Commission (F.2-15/2003 SA-I)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Antifungal resistance and susceptibility
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Fungal Plant Pathogen Control
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Yeasts and Rust Fungi Studies
Keywords
Candida auris, antifungal susceptibility testing, EUCAST, CLSI, epidemiological cut-off values, amphotericin B, fluconazole resistance, itraconazole, posaconazole, micafungin, anidulafungin, isavuconazole, voriconazole
MeSH terms
Micafungin, Amphotericin B, Antifungal Agents, Azoles, Candida, Microbial Sensitivity Tests, Echinocandins, Lipopeptides

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