Cited by 113Antifungal resistance and susceptibilityBacterial Identification and Susceptibility TestingFungal Infections and Studies

Evaluation of Amphotericin B Interpretive Breakpoints for Candida Bloodstream Isolates by Correlation with Therapeutic Outcome

Open access
Park, Benjamin J., Arthington-Skaggs, Beth A., Hajjeh, Rana A., Iqbal, Naureen, Ciblak, Meral A., Lee-Yang, Wendy, Hairston, Mario D., Phelan, Maureen +5 more·2006·Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy

Abstract

One hundred seven Candida bloodstream isolates (51 C. albicans, 24 C. glabrata, 13 C. parapsilosis, 13 C. tropicalis, 2 C. dubliniensis, 2 C. krusei, and 2 C. lusitaniae strains) from patients treated with amphotericin B alone underwent in vitro susceptibility testing against amphotericin B using five different methods. Fifty-four isolates were from patients who failed treatment, defined as death 7 to 14 days after the incident candidemia episode, having persistent fever of >or=5 days' duration after the date of the incident candidemia, or the recurrence of fever after two consecutive afebrile days while on antifungal treatment. MICs were determined by using the Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute (formally National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards) broth microdilution procedure with two media and by using Etest. Minimum fungicidal concentrations (MFCs) were also measured in two media. Broth microdilution tests with RPMI 1640 medium generated a restricted range of MICs (0.125 to 1 microg/ml); the corresponding MFC values ranged from 0.5 to 4 microg/ml. Broth microdilution tests with antibiotic medium 3 produced a broader distribution of MIC and MFC results (0.015 to 0.25 microg/ml and 0.06 to 2 microg/ml, respectively). Etest produced the widest distribution of MICs (0.094 to 2 microg/ml). However, none of the test formats studied generated results that significantly correlated with therapeutic success or failure.

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.50.4.1287-1292.2006

Cites

17 of 17 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?

  • Correlation between amphotericin B MIC values and clinical response has not been consistently established.

    “Correlation between amphotericin B MIC values and clinical response has not been consistently established [60,61].”

    From Treatment of Invasive Candidiasis: A Narrative Review (2018) · cites this paper as [60]

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [10]Nguyen, M. H., J. E. Peacock, D. C. Tanner, A. J. Morris, M. L. Nguyen, D. R. Snydman, M. M. Wagener, and V. L. Yu. 1995. Therapeutic approaches in patients with candidemia. Arch. Intern. Med. 155:2429-2435. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Park, B. J., Arthington-Skaggs, B. A., Hajjeh, R. A., Iqbal, N., Ciblak, M. A., Lee-Yang, W., Hairston, M. D., Phelan, M., Plikaytis, B. D., Sofair, A. N., Harrison, L. H., Fridkin, S. K., & Warnock, D. W.
Affiliations
  • Mycotic Diseases Branch
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US)
  • Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
Corresponding author
Park, Benjamin J.
Venue
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
Published
2006-04
Volume
50
Issue
4
Pages
1287-1292
ISSN
  • 0066-4804 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-6596
OpenAlex
W2137617742
Cited by
113
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 6
FWCI
6.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Antifungal resistance and susceptibility
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Clinical Biochemistry › Bacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Fungal Infections and Studies
Keywords
amphotericin B, interpretive breakpoints, candidemia, antifungal susceptibility testing, minimum inhibitory concentration, minimum fungicidal concentration, broth microdilution, E-test, treatment outcomes, Candida albicans, Candida glabrata, Candida parapsilosis, Candida tropicalis, Candida dubliniensis, Candida krusei, Candida lusitaniae
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Amphotericin B, Antifungal Agents, Candida, Candidiasis, Child, Child, Preschool, Female, Humans, Infant, Infant, Newborn, Male, Microbial Sensitivity Tests, Middle Aged, Fungemia, Treatment Failure

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