CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 38Antifungal resistance and susceptibilityYeasts and Rust Fungi StudiesBacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing

In Vitro Antifungal Susceptibility Testing of Candida Isolates with the EUCAST Methodology, a New Method for ECOFF Determination

Open access
Meletiadis, J., Curfs-Breuker, I., Meis, J. F., Mouton, J. W.·2017·Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
DOI 10.1128/aac.02372-16PMC PMC5365691
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The in vitro susceptibilities of 1,099 molecularly identified clinical Candida isolates against 8 antifungal drugs were determined using the EUCAST microdilution method. A new simple, objective, and mathematically solid method for determining epidemiological cutoff values (ECOFFs) was developed by derivatizing the MIC distribution and determining the derivatized ECOFF (dECOFF) as the highest MIC with the maximum second derivative. The dECOFFs were similar (95% agreement within 1 dilution) to the EUCAST ECOFFs. Overall, low non-wild-type/resistance rates were found. The highest rates were found for azoles with C. parapsilosis (2.7 to 9.8%), C. albicans (7%), and C. glabrata (1.7 to 2.3%) and for echinocandins with C. krusei (3.3%), C. albicans (1%), and C. tropicalis (1.7%).

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.02372-16

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?

  • Epidemiological cut-off values rely on MICs to detect acquired resistance, typically caused by mutations.

    “Epidemiological cut-off values use MICs to identify isolates with acquired resistance, usually via mutations24.”

    From Drug resistance and tolerance in fungi. (2020) · cites this paper as [24]

    The paper’s introductory text (indexed as ABSTRACT; page unavailable) says ECOFFs use MIC distributions to detect non-wild-type isolates that may have reduced susceptibility. It does not establish that those isolates have acquired resistance or that resistance is usually caused by mutations; it notes that testing isolates with known resistance mechanisms would be useful. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. [1]Mouton JW, Brown DF, Apfalter P, Canton R, Giske CG, Ivanova M, Macgowan AP, Rodloff A, Soussy CJ, Steinbakk M, Kahlmeter G. 2012. The role of pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics in setting clinical MIC breakpoints: the EUCAST approach. Clin Microbiol Infect 18:E37–E45. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2011.03752.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  2. [2]Espinel-Ingroff A, Turnidge J. 2016. The role of epidemiological cutoff values (ECVs/ECOFFs) in antifungal susceptibility testing and interpretation for uncommon yeasts and moulds. Rev Iberoam Micol 33:63–75. doi: 10.1016/j.riam.2016.04.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  3. [3]Turnidge J, Kahlmeter G, Kronvall G. 2006. Statistical characterisation of bacterial wild-type MIC value distributions and the determination of epidemiological cut-off values. Clin Microbiol Infect 12:418–425. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2006.01377.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  4. [4]Meletiadis J, Mavridou E, Melchers WJ, Mouton JW, Verweij PE. 2012. Epidemiological cutoff values for azoles and Aspergillus fumigatus based on a novel mathematical approach incorporating cyp51A sequence analysis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 56:2524–2529. doi: 10.1128/AAC.05959-11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  5. [5]Prakash A, Sharma C, Singh A, Kumar Singh P, Kumar A, Hagen F, Govender NP, Colombo AL, Meis JF, Chowdhary A. 2016. Evidence of genotypic diversity among Candida auris isolates by multilocus sequence typing, matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry and amplified fragment length polymorphism. Clin Microbiol Infect 22:277.e1–277.e9. doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2015.10.022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  6. [6]Meletiadis J, Geertsen E, Curfs-Breuker I, Meis JF, Mouton JW. 2016. Intra- and interlaboratory agreement in assessing the in vitro activity of micafungin against common and rare Candida species with the EUCAST, CLSI, and Etest methods. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 60:6173–6178. doi: 10.1128/AAC.01027-16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  7. [8]Guinea J, Zaragoza O, Escribano P, Martin-Mazuelos E, Peman J, Sanchez-Reus F, Cuenca-Estrella M. 2014. Molecular identification and antifungal susceptibility of yeast isolates causing fungemia collected in a population-based study in Spain in 2010 and 2011. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 58:1529–1537. doi: 10.1128/AAC.02155-13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  8. [9]Faria-Ramos I, Neves-Maia J, Ricardo E, Santos-Antunes J, Silva AT, Costa-de-Oliveira S, Canton E, Rodrigues AG, Pina-Vaz C. 2014. Species distribution and in vitro antifungal susceptibility profiles of yeast isolates from invasive infections during a Portuguese multicenter survey. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 33:2241–2247. doi: 10.1007/s10096-014-2194-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  9. [10]Minea B, Nastasa V, Moraru RF, Kolecka A, Flonta MM, Marincu I, Man A, Toma F, Lupse M, Doroftei B, Marangoci N, Pinteala M, Boekhout T, Mares M. 2014. Species distribution and susceptibility profile to fluconazole, voriconazole and MXP-4509 of 551 clinical yeast isolates from a Romanian multi-centre study. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 34:367–383. doi: 10.1007/s10096-014-2240-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  10. [11]Orasch C, Marchetti O, Garbino J, Schrenzel J, Zimmerli S, Muhlethaler K, Pfyffer G, Ruef C, Fehr J, Zbinden R, Calandra T, Bille J. 2014. Candida species distribution and antifungal susceptibility testing according to European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing and new vs. old Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute clinical breakpoints: a 6-year prospective candidaemia survey from the fungal infection network of Switzerland. Clin Microbiol Infect 20:698–705. doi: 10.1111/1469-0691.12440. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  11. [12]Rambach G, Oberhauser H, Speth C, Lass-Flörl C. 2011. Susceptibility of Candida species and various moulds to antimycotic drugs: use of epidemiological cutoff values according to EUCAST and CLSI in an 8-year survey. Med Mycol 49:856–863. doi: 10.3109/13693786.2011.583943. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Meletiadis, J., Curfs-Breuker, I., Meis, J. F., & Mouton, J. W.
Affiliations
  • National and Kapodistrian University of Athens (GR)
  • Canisius-Wilhelmina Ziekenhuis (NL)
  • Radboud University Medical Center (NL)
  • Erasmus MC (NL)
ORCID
Venue
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
Publisher
American Society for Microbiology
Published
2017-04
Volume
61
Issue
4
ISSN
  • 0066-4804 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-6596
DOI
10.1128/aac.02372-16
PMC
PMC5365691
OpenAlex
W2581077726
Cited by
38
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 2
FWCI
3.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
journals.asm.org/non-commercial-tdm-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Astellas Pharma US
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
Candida, antifungal susceptibility, epidemiological cut-off values, MIC distribution, Candida parapsilosis, Candida albicans, Candida glabrata, Candida krusei, Candida tropicalis, azole resistance, echinocandin resistance
MeSH terms
Antifungal Agents, Azoles, Candida, Candida albicans, Microbial Sensitivity Tests, Models, Theoretical, 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