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

Servicio de MicologĂ­a, Centro Nacional de MicrobiologĂ­a, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Majadahonda, Madrid, Spain.


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