Cited by 51Antifungal resistance and susceptibilityFungal Plant Pathogen ControlYeasts and Rust Fungi Studies

Use of Anidulafungin as a Surrogate Marker To Predict Susceptibility and Resistance to Caspofungin among 4,290 Clinical Isolates of Candida by Using CLSI Methods and Interpretive Criteria

Pfaller, Michael A., Diekema, Daniel J., Jones, Ronald N., Castanheira, Mariana·2014·Journal of Clinical Microbiology

Abstract

ABSTRACT This study addressed the application of anidulafungin as a surrogate marker to predict the susceptibility of Candida to caspofungin due to unacceptably high interlaboratory variation of caspofungin MIC values. CLSI reference broth microdilution methods and species-specific interpretive criteria were used to test 4,290 strains of Candida (eight species), including 71 strains with documentedfksmutations. Caspofungin MIC values were compared with those of anidulafungin to determine the percentage of categorical agreement (CA) and very major (VME), major (ME), and minor error rates, as well as the ability to detectfksmutants. For all 4,290 isolates the CA was 97.1% (0.2% VME and ME, 2.5% minor errors) using anidulafungin as the surrogate. Among the 62 isolates of Candida albicans (4 isolates), C. tropicalis (5 isolates), C. krusei (4 isolates), C. kefyr (2 isolates), and C. glabrata (47 isolates) that were nonsusceptible (NS; either intermediate [I] or resistant [R]) to both caspofungin and anidulafungin, 52 (83.8%) contained a mutation infks1orfks2. Eight mutants of C. glabrata , two of C. albicans , and one each of C. tropicalis and C. krusei were classified as susceptible (S) to both antifungal agents. The remaining 7 mutants (2 C. albicans and 5 C. glabrata ) were susceptible to one of the agents and either intermediate or resistant to the other. Using the epidemiological cutoff value (ECV) of 0.12 μg/ml for both caspofungin and anidulafungin to differentiate wild-type (WT) from non-WT strains of C. glabrata , 42 of the 55 (76.4%) C. glabrata mutants were non-WT and 8 of the 55 (14.5%) were WT for both agents (90.9% concordance). Anidulafungin can accurately serve as a surrogate marker to predict S and R of Candida to caspofungin.

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/jcm.00782-14

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

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 35 · Cited by 51

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [15]15. Arendrup MC, Rodriguez-Tudela JL, Park S, Garcia-Effron G, Delmas G, Cuenca-Estrella M, Gomez-Lopez A, Perlin DS. 2011. Echinocandin susceptibility testing of Candida spp. using EUCAST EDef 7.1 andCLSIM27-A3standardprocedures:analysis of the influence of bovine serumalbuminsupplementation,storage time, and drug lots. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 55: 1580-1587. http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AAC.01364 -10. · DOI
  2. [24]24. Perlin DS. 2011. Echinocandin-resistant Candida: molecular methods andphenotypes. Curr. Fungal Infect. Rep. 5: 113-119. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1007/s12281-011-0054-x.
  3. [26]26. Ferraro MJ, Jorgensen JH. 1995. Instrument-based antibacterial susceptibility testing, p 1379 -1384. In MurrayPR,BaronEJ,Pfaller MA, Tenover FC, Yolken RH (ed), Manual of clinical microbiology, 6th ed. ASM Press, Washington, DC.

Authors
Pfaller, M. A., Diekema, D. J., Jones, R. N., & Castanheira, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics (US)
  • JMI Laboratories (US)
Venue
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
Published
2014-09
Volume
52
Issue
9
Pages
3223-3229
ISSN
  • 0095-1137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-660X
OpenAlex
W4245165711
Cited by
51
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 3
FWCI
6.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Clinical Microbiology (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Pfizer
  • Astellas Pharma
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Antifungal resistance and susceptibility
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Fungal Plant Pathogen Control
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Yeasts and Rust Fungi Studies
Keywords
anidulafungin, caspofungin, Candida, surrogate markers, antifungal susceptibility, caspofungin resistance, Candida glabrata, Candida albicans, Candida tropicalis, Candida krusei, Candida kefyr, epidemiological cut-off values, inter-laboratory variability, antifungal susceptibility testing, categorical agreement

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