Evaluation of Caspofungin Susceptibility Testing by the New Vitek 2 AST-YS06 Yeast Card Using a Unique Collection of FKS Wild-Type and Hot Spot Mutant Isolates, Including the Five Most Common Candida Species
Open accessAbstract
FKS mutant isolates associated with breakthrough or failure cases are emerging in clinical settings. Discrimination of these from wild-type (wt) isolates in a routine laboratory setting is complicated. We evaluated the ability of caspofungin MIC determination using the new Vitek 2 AST-Y06 yeast susceptibility card to correctly identify the fks mutants from wt isolates and compared the performance to those of the CLSI and EUCAST reference methods. A collection of 98 Candida isolates, including 31 fks hot spot mutants, were included. Performance was evaluated using the FKS genotype as the "gold standard" and compared to those of the CLSI and EUCAST methodologies. The categorical agreement for Vitek 2 was 93.9%, compared to 88.4% for the CLSI method and 98.7% for the EUCAST method. Vitek 2 misclassified 19.4% (6/31) of the fks mutant isolates as susceptible, in contrast to <4% for each of the reference methods. The overall essential agreement between the CLSI method and Vitek 2 MICs was 92.6% (88/95) but was substantially lower for fks mutant isolates (78.6% [22/28]). Correct discrimination between susceptible and intermediate Candida glabrata isolates was not possible, as the revised species-specific susceptibility breakpoint was not included in the Vitek 2 detection range (MIC of ≤0.250 to ≥4 mg/liter). In conclusion, the Vitek 2 allowed correct categorization of all wt isolates as susceptible. However, despite an acceptable categorical agreement, it failed to reliably classify isolates harboring fks hot spot mutations as intermediate or resistant, which was in part due to the fact that the detection range did not span the susceptibility breakpoint for C. glabrata.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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?
Some laboratories have noted an unexpected high number of C. glabrata and C. krusei isolates being categorised as non-susceptible using the CLSI method for testing caspofungin susceptibility and by using the Etest and Sensititre Yeast One system.
“Despite this, some laboratories have noted an unexpected high number of C. glabrata and C. krusei isolates being categorised as non-susceptible using the CLSI method for testing caspofungin susceptibility and by using the Etest and Sensititre Yeast One system, which are standardised against the CLSI method (29;43–45).”
From Echinocandin resistance: an emerging clinical problem? (2014) · cites this paper as [45]
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 29 · Cited by 43
- Authors
- Astvad, K. M., Perlin, D. S., Johansen, H. K., Jensen, R. H., & Arendrup, M. C.
- Affiliations
- Rigshospitalet (DK)
- Rutgers New Jersey Medical School (US)
- Unit of Mycology and Parasitology, Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark
- Statens Serum Institut (DK)
- Venue
- Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
- Publisher
- American Society for Microbiology
- Published
- 2013-01
- Volume
- 57
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 177-182
- ISSN
- 0066-4804 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-6596
- PMC
- PMC3535959
- OpenAlex
- W2001473031
- Cited by
- 43
- References
- 29
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 6
- FWCI
- 3.09
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Pfizer
- Gilead Sciences
- Astellas Pharma
- National Institutes of Health
- National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (U01AI066561)
- 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
- caspofungin, Candida, Candida glabrata, antifungal susceptibility testing, susceptibility breakpoints, Candida albicans, Candida parapsilosis, Candida tropicalis, Candida krusei
- MeSH terms
- Caspofungin, Antifungal Agents, Candida, Candidiasis, Fungal Proteins, Glucosyltransferases, Humans, Microbial Sensitivity Tests, Mutation, Reagent Strips, Sensitivity and Specificity, Drug Resistance, Fungal, Candida glabrata, 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