Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2005 Jun;11(6):486-92.

Correlation between the procedure for antifungal susceptibility testing for Candida spp. of the European Committee on Antibiotic Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) and four commercial techniques.

Author information

1
Servicio de MicologĂ­a, Centro Nacional de MicrobiologĂ­a, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Majadahonda, Madrid, Spain. mcuenca-estrella@isciii.es

Abstract

The correlation between results obtained with the European Committee on Antibiotic Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) antifungal susceptibility testing procedure (document 7.1) and four commercial systems was evaluated for a collection of 93 clinical isolates of Candida spp. Overall, agreement between the EUCAST procedure and the Sensititre YeastOne and Etest methods was 75% and 90.4%, respectively. The correlation indices (p < 0.01) between the EUCAST and commercial methods were 0.92 for Sensititre YeastOne, 0.89 for Etest, - 0.90 for Neo-Sensitabs, and 0.95 for Fungitest. Amphotericin B MICs obtained by Sensititre YeastOne were consistently higher than with the EUCAST method and, although very major errors were not observed, 91% of MICs were misclassified. Amphotericin B- and fluconazole-resistant isolates were identified correctly with Sensititre YeastOne, Etest and Fungitest. Neo-Sensitabs identified amphotericin B-resistant isolates, but misclassified > 5% of fluconazole-resistant isolates as susceptible. The commercial methods, particularly Etest and Fungitest, appeared to be suitable alternatives to the EUCAST procedure for antifungal susceptibility testing of clinical isolates of Candida.

[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free full text

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center