Cited by 61Antifungal resistance and susceptibilityYeasts and Rust Fungi StudiesBacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing

Real-world experience with echinocandin MICs against Candida species in a multicenter study of hospitals that routinely perform susceptibility testing of bloodstream isolates

Open access
Eschenauer, Gregory A., Nguyen, M. Hong, Shoham, Shmuel, Vazquez, Jose A., Morris, Arthur J., Pasculle, William A., Kubin, Christine J., Klinker, Kenneth P. +8 more·2014·Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy

Abstract

Reference broth microdilution methods of Candida echinocandin susceptibility testing are limited by interlaboratory variability in caspofungin MICs. Recently revised Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) breakpoint MICs for echinocandin nonsusceptibility may not be valid for commercial tests employed in hospital laboratories. Indeed, there are limited echinocandin susceptibility testing data from hospital laboratories. We conducted a multicenter retrospective study of 9 U.S., Australian, and New Zealand hospitals that routinely tested Candida bloodstream isolates for echinocandin susceptibility from 2005 to 2013. Eight hospitals used Sensititre YeastOne assays. The Candida spp. were C. albicans (n=1,067), C. glabrata (n=911), C. parapsilosis (n=476), C. tropicalis (n=185), C. krusei (n=104), and others (n=154). Resistance and intermediate rates were ≤1.4% and ≤3%, respectively, for each echinocandin against C. albicans, C. parapsilosis, and C. tropicalis. Resistance rates among C. glabrata and C. krusei isolates were ≤7.5% and ≤5.6%, respectively. Caspofungin intermediate rates among C. glabrata and C. krusei isolates were 17.8% and 46.5%, respectively, compared to ≤4.3% and ≤4.4% for other echinocandins. Using CLSI breakpoints, 18% and 19% of C. glabrata isolates were anidulafungin susceptible/caspofungin nonsusceptible and micafungin susceptible/caspofungin nonsusceptible, respectively; similar discrepancies were observed for 38% and 39% of C. krusei isolates. If only YeastOne data were considered, interhospital modal MIC variability was low (within 2 doubling dilutions for each agent). In conclusion, YeastOne assays employed in hospitals may reduce the interlaboratory variability in caspofungin MICs against Candida species that are observed between reference laboratories using CLSI broth microdilution methods. The significance of classifying isolates as caspofungin intermediate and anidulafungin/micafungin susceptible will require clarification in future studies.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1128/aac.02163-13

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • 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 [35]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Eschenauer, G. A., Nguyen, M. H., Shoham, S., Vazquez, J. A., Morris, A. J., Pasculle, W. A., Kubin, C. J., Klinker, K. P., Carver, P. L., Hanson, K. E., Chen, S., Lam, S. W., Potoski, B. A., Clarke, L. G., Shields, R. K., & Clancy, C. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (US)
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, Michigan, USA
  • Auckland City Hospital (NZ)
  • NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital (US)
  • UF Health Shands Hospital (US)
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • University of Utah (US)
  • Westmead Hospital (AU)
  • Cleveland Clinic (US)
Venue
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
Published
2014-04
Volume
58
Issue
4
Pages
1897-1906
ISSN
  • 0066-4804 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-6596
OpenAlex
W2109261304
Cited by
61
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 14
FWCI
9.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (KL2TR000146)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Antifungal resistance and susceptibility
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Yeasts and Rust Fungi Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Clinical Biochemistry › Bacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing
Keywords
echinocandin susceptibility, caspofungin, anidulafungin, micafungin, Candida glabrata, Candida krusei, Candida albicans, Candida parapsilosis, Candida tropicalis, antifungal resistance, CLSI breakpoints, inter-laboratory variability
MeSH terms
Caspofungin, Micafungin, Anidulafungin, Antifungal Agents, Candida, Humans, 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