Cited by 258Antifungal resistance and susceptibilityFungal Plant Pathogen ControlBacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing

Correlation of MIC with Outcome for Candida Species Tested against Voriconazole: Analysis and Proposal for Interpretive Breakpoints

Open access
Pfaller, M. A., Diekema, D. J., Rex, J. H., Espinel-Ingroff, A., Johnson, E. M., Andes, D., Chaturvedi, V., Ghannoum, M. A +6 more·2006·Journal of Clinical Microbiology

Abstract

Developing interpretive breakpoints for any given organism-drug combination requires integration of the MIC distribution, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic parameters, and the relationship between the in vitro activity and outcome from both in vivo and clinical studies. Using data generated by standardized broth microdilution and disk diffusion test methods, the Antifungal Susceptibility Subcommittee of the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute has now proposed interpretive breakpoints for voriconazole and Candida species. The MIC distribution for voriconazole was determined using a collection of 8,702 clinical isolates. The overall MIC 90 was 0.25 μg/ml and 99% of the isolates were inhibited at ≤1 μg/ml of voriconazole. Similar results were obtained for 1,681 Candida isolates (16 species) from the phase III clinical trials. Analysis of the available data for 249 patients from six phase III voriconazole clinical trials demonstrated a statistically significant correlation ( P = 0.021) between MIC and investigator end-of-treatment assessment of outcome. Consistent with parallel pharmacodynamic analyses, these data support the following MIC breakpoints for voriconazole and Candida species: susceptible (S), ≤1 μg/ml; susceptible dose dependent (SDD), 2 μg/ml; and resistant (R), ≥4 μg/ml. The corresponding disk test breakpoints are as follows: S, ≥17 mm; SDD, 14 to 16 mm; and R, ≤13 mm.

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.44.3.819-826.2006

Cites

42 of 42 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?

  • Analysis of a dataset of more than 400 patients from 6 phase III clinical trials demonstrated a strong relationship between voriconazole AUC/MIC and outcome.

    “Analysis of this dataset demonstrated a strong relationship between AUC/MIC and outcome.”
  • Therapeutic success was observed in approximately 80% of patients with a voriconazole 24-hour AUC/MIC greater than 25, whereas clinical failure was noted in 45% of patients with AUC/MIC less than 25.

    “Therapeutic success was observed in approximately 80% of patients with a 24-hour AUC/MIC greater than 25, whereas when the AUC/MIC was less than 25, clinical failure was noted in 45% of patients.”
  • Scatterplots of anidulafungin MICs and micafungin MICs versus caspofungin MICs show high correlation (R = 0.83), with 92% (anidulafungin) to 97% (micafungin) of all MICs within ± 2 log2 dilutions of one another.

    “Indeed, scatterplots of anidulafungin MICs (Fig. 3a) and micafungin MICs (Fig. 3b) versus caspofungin MICs show high levels of correlation ( R = 0.83), with 92% (anidulafungin) to 97% (micafungin) of all MICs for the two comparisons within ± 2 log 2 dilutions of one another (230).”

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

1 of the 43 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [11]Florea, N. R., J. L. Kuti, and R. Quintiliani. 2002. Voriconazole: a novel azole antifungal. Formulary 37:389-399. [Google Scholar]
  2. [33]Pfaller, M. A., and D. J. Diekema. 2004. Rare and emerging opportunistic fungal pathogens: concerns for resistance beyond Candida albicans and Aspergillus fumigatus. J. Clin. Microbiol. 42:4419-4431. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. [34]Pfaller, M. A., D. J. Diekema, M. Rinaldi, R. Barnes, J. Bijie, A. Veselov, N. Tiraboschi, E. Nagy, D. L. Gibbs, and the Global Antifungal Surveillance Group. 2005. Results from the ARTEMIS DISK Global Antifungal Surveillance Study: a 6.5-year analysis of the worldwide susceptibility of yeasts to fluconazole and voriconazole using standardized disk diffusion testing. J. Clin. Microbiol. 43:5848-5859. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pfaller, M. A., Diekema, D. J., Rex, J. H., Espinel-Ingroff, A., Johnson, E. M., Andes, D., Chaturvedi, V., Ghannoum, M. A., Odds, F. C., Rinaldi, M. G., Sheehan, D. J., Troke, P., Walsh, T. J., & Warnock, D. W.
Affiliations
  • University of Iowa (US)
  • AstraZeneca (United Kingdom) (GB)
  • VCU Medical Center, Richmond, Virginia
  • HPA Centre for Infections, Kingsdown, Bristol, United Kingdom
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
  • New York State Department of Health (US)
  • Case Western Reserve University (US)
  • University of Aberdeen (GB)
  • The University of Texas at San Antonio Health Science Center (US)
  • Pfizer (United States) (US)
  • Pfizer (United Kingdom) (GB)
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US)
Corresponding author
Pfaller, M. A.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
Published
2006-03
Volume
44
Issue
3
Pages
819-826
ISSN
  • 0095-1137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-660X
OpenAlex
W2138433856
Cited by
258
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 16
FWCI
25.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Microbiology (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Pfizer
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 › Clinical Biochemistry › Bacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing
Keywords
voriconazole, Candida species, interpretive breakpoints, minimum inhibitory concentration, antifungal susceptibility, MIC distribution, antifungal resistance
MeSH terms
Antifungal Agents, Candida, Candidiasis, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Humans, Microbial Sensitivity Tests, Pyrimidines, Triazoles, Fluconazole, Inhibitory Concentration 50, Endpoint Determination, Drug Resistance, Fungal, Voriconazole

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