Abstract

We prospectively determined the antifungal susceptibility of yeast isolates causing fungemia using the Etest on direct blood samples (195 prospectively collected and 133 laboratory prepared). We compared the Etest direct (24 h of incubation) with CLSI M27-A3 and the standard Etest methodologies for fluconazole, voriconazole, posaconazole, isavuconazole, caspofungin, and amphotericin B. Strains were classified as susceptible, resistant, or nonsusceptible using CLSI breakpoints (voriconazole breakpoints were used for posaconazole and isavuconazole). Categorical errors between Etest direct and CLSI M27-A3 for azoles were mostly minor. No errors were detected for caspofungin, and high percentages of major errors were detected for amphotericin B. For the azoles, false susceptibility (very major errors) was found in only two (0.6%) isolates (Candida tropicalis and C. glabrata). False resistance (major errors) was detected in 46 (14%) isolates for the three azoles (in 23 [7%] after excluding posaconazole). Etest direct of posaconazole yielded a higher number of major errors than the remaining azoles, especially for C. glabrata, Candida spp., and other yeasts. Excluding C. glabrata, Candida spp., and other yeasts, the remaining species did not yield major errors. Etest direct for fluconazole, voriconazole, isavuconazole, and caspofungin shows potential as an alternative to the CLSI M27-A3 procedure for performing rapid antifungal susceptibility tests on yeast isolates from patients with fungemia. Etest direct is a useful tool to screen for the presence of azole-resistant and caspofungin-nonsusceptible strains.