Cited by 158Antifungal resistance and susceptibilityBacterial Identification and Susceptibility TestingYeasts and Rust Fungi Studies

Echinocandin Susceptibility Testing of Candida Species: Comparison of EUCAST EDef 7.1, CLSI M27-A3, Etest, Disk Diffusion, and Agar Dilution Methods with RPMI and IsoSensitest Media

Open access
Arendrup, Maiken Cavling, Garcia-Effron, Guillermo, Lass-Flörl, Cornelia, Lopez, Alicia Gomez, Rodriguez-Tudela, Juan-Luis, Cuenca-Estrella, Manuel, Perlin, David S.·2010·Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy

Abstract

ABSTRACT This study compared nine susceptibility testing methods and 12 endpoints for anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin with the same collection of blindedFKShot spot mutant (n= 29) and wild-type isolates (n= 94). The susceptibility tests included EUCAST Edef 7.1, agar dilution, Etest, and disk diffusion with RPMI-1640 plus 2% glucose (2G) and IsoSensitest-2G media and CLSI M27A-3. Microdilution plates were read after 24 and 48 h. The following test parameters were evaluated:fkshot spot mutants overlapping the wild-type distribution, distance between the two populations, number of very major errors (VMEs;fksmutants misclassified as susceptible), and major errors (MEs; wild-type isolates classified as resistant) using a wild-type-upper-limit value (WT-UL) (two twofold-dilutions higher than the MIC50) as the susceptibility breakpoint. The methods with the lowest number of errors (given as VMEs/MEs) across the three echinocandins were CLSI (12%/1%), agar dilution with RPMI-2G medium (14%/0%), and Etest with RPMI-2G medium (8%/3%). The fewest errors overall were observed for anidulafungin (4%/1% for EUCAST, 4%/3% for CLSI, and 3%/9% for Etest with RPMI-2G). For micafungin, VME rates of 10 to 71% were observed. For caspofungin, agar dilution with either medium was superior (VMEs/MEs of 0%/1%), while CLSI, EUCAST with IsoSensitest-2G medium, and Etest were less optimal (VMEs of 7%, 10%, and 10%, respectively). Applying the CLSI breakpoint (S ≤ 2 μg/ml) for CLSI results, 89.2%fkshot spot mutants were classified as anidulafungin susceptible, 60.7% as caspofungin susceptible, and 92.9% as micafungin susceptible. In conclusion, no test was perfect, but anidulafungin susceptibility testing using the WT-UL to define susceptibility reliably identifiedfkshot spot mutants.

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.01256-09

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • Echinocandin resistance has been found in most clinically relevant Candida species.

    “It has been found in most clinically relevant Candida species, but is most common in C. glabrata with rates exceeding 10% at selected institutions.”

    From Echinocandin resistance: an emerging clinical problem? (2014) · cites this paper as [15]

  • Echinocandin resistance has emerged in Candida over recent years.

    “Echinocandin resistance has emerged over the recent years.”

    From Echinocandin resistance: an emerging clinical problem? (2014) · cites this paper as [15]

  • Most reports of acquired echinocandin resistance are case reports or case series, which collectively document the potential of resistance development in almost all species that are not intrinsically susceptible.

    “Most are case reports or case series, which collectively document the potential of resistance development in almost all species that are not intrinsically susceptible (9–15).”

    From Echinocandin resistance: an emerging clinical problem? (2014) · cites this paper as [15]

  • Acquired echinocandin resistance has been reported in single isolates belonging to most Candida species including C. albicans, C. dubliniensis, C. kefyr, C. glabrata, C. krusei, C. lusitaniae and C. tropicalis.

    “Moreover, reports on acquired echinocandin resistance, defined as resistance among species that are normally susceptible, have emerged and today acquired resistance has been reported in single isolates belonging to most Candida species including C. albicans, C. dubliniensis, C. kefyr, C. glabrata, C. krusei, C. lusitaniae and C. tropicalis (9–15).”

    From Echinocandin resistance: an emerging clinical problem? (2014) · cites this paper as [15]

  • Clinically relevant acquired echinocandin resistance in Candida has never been detected in the absence of FKS hot spot mutations.

    “So far, clinically relevant acquired echinocandin resistance in Candida has never been detected in absence of FKS hot spot mutations.”

    From Echinocandin resistance: an emerging clinical problem? (2014) · cites this paper as [15]

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Arendrup, M. C., Garcia-Effron, G., Lass-Flörl, C., Lopez, A. G., Rodriguez-Tudela, J.-L., Cuenca-Estrella, M., & Perlin, D. S.
Affiliations
  • Statens Serum Institut (DK)
  • Public Health Research Institute, UMDNJ-New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey
  • Department of Hygiene and Medical Microbiology, Innsbruck Medical University, Innsbruck, Austria
  • Servicio de Micología, Centro Nacional de Microbiología, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Majadahonda, Spain
  • Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ES)
  • Rutgers New Jersey Medical School (US)
Corresponding author
Arendrup, Maiken Cavling
Venue
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
Published
2010-01
Volume
54
Issue
1
Pages
426-439
ISSN
  • 0066-4804 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-6596
OpenAlex
W2127906630
Cited by
158
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 20
FWCI
12.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (AI069397, R01AI069397)
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, anidulafungin, caspofungin, micafungin, agar dilution, E-test, disk diffusion, susceptibility breakpoints, very major errors, method comparison, antifungal resistance, Candida glabrata
MeSH terms
Caspofungin, Micafungin, Anidulafungin, Antifungal Agents, Candida, Candidiasis, Culture Media, Indicator Dilution Techniques, Microbial Sensitivity Tests, Reference Standards, 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