Should Etest MICs for Yeasts Be Categorized by Reference (BPs/ECVs) or by Etest (ECVs) Cutoffs as Determinants of Emerging Resistance?

Commercial Methods for Antifungal Susceptibility Testing of Yeasts: Strengths and Limitations as Predictors of Resistance

Susceptibility testing can yield variable results because it is method (commercial or reference), agent, and species dependent. Therefore, in order for results to be clinically relevant, MICs (minimal inhibitory concentrations) or MECs (minimal effective concentrations) should help in selecting the best treatment agent in the clinical setting. This is accomplished by categorical endpoints, ideally, breakpoints (BPs) and/or ECVs/ECOFFs (epidemiological cutoff values). BPs and ECVs are available by the reference methods (CLSI [Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute] and EUCAST [European Committee on Antifungal Susceptibility Testing]) for a variety of species/agent combinations. The lack of clinical data precludes establishment of BPs for susceptibility testing by the commercial methods and ECVs have only been calculated for the Etest and SYO assays. The goal of this review is to summarize the variety of commercial methods for antifungal susceptibility testing and the potential value of Etest and SYO ECVs for detecting mutants/non-wild type (NWT) Candida isolates. Therefore, the literature search focused on publications where the commercial method, meaning MICs and ECVs, were reported for specific NWT isolates; genetic mutations have also been listed. For the Etest, the best performers recognizing the NWT were anidulafungin ECVs: 92% for the common species; 97% for C. glabrata and fluconazole ECVs, mostly for C. parapsilosis (45 NWT isolates). By the SYO, posaconazole ECVs recognized 93% of the C. albicans and 96% of the C. parapsilosis NWT isolates and micafungin ECVs 94% (mostly C. albicans and C. glabrata). Smaller sets, some with clinical data, were also listed. These are promising results for the use of both commercial methods to identify antifungal resistance (NWT isolates). However, ECVs for other species and methods need to be defined, including the C. neoformans complex and emerging species.

Etest ECVs/ECOFFs for detection of resistance in prevalent and three non-prevalent Candida spp. to triazoles and amphotericin B and Aspergillus spp. to caspofungin: Further assessment of modal variability

Susceptibility testing is an important tool in the clinical setting; its utility is based on the availability of categorical endpoints, breakpoints (BPs) or epidemiological cutoff values (ECVs/ECOFFs). CLSI and EUCAST have developed antifungal susceptibility testing, BPs and ECVs for some fungal species. Although the Concentration Gradient Strip BioMerieux Etest is useful for routine testing in the clinical laboratory, ECVs are not available for all agent/species; the lack of clinical data precludes development of BPs. We re-evaluated and consolidated Etest data points from three previous studies, and included new data. We defined ECOFFinder Etest ECVs for three sets of species/agent combinations: fluconazole, posaconazole and voriconazole and 8 Candida spp.; amphotericin B and 3 non-prevalent Candida spp.; and caspofungin and 5 Aspergillus spp. The total of Etest MICs from 23 laboratories (Europe, the Americas, South Africa) included (antifungal agent/dependent): 17,242 Candida albicans, 244 C. dubliniensis, 5,129 C. glabrata species complex (SC), 275 C. guilliermondii (Meyerozyma guilliermondii), 1,133 C. krusei (Pichia kudriavzevii), 933 C. kefyr (Kluyveromyces marxianus), 519 C. lusitaniae (Clavispora lusitaniae), 2,947 C. parapsilosis SC, 2,214 C. tropicalis, 3,212 Aspergillus fumigatus, 232 A. flavus, 181 A. niger, and 267 A. terreus SC isolates. Triazole MICs for 66 confirmed non-wild-type (non-WT) Candida isolates were available (ERG11 point mutations). Distributions fulfilling CLSI ECV criteria were pooled and ECOFFinder Etest ECVs were established for triazoles (9 Candida spp.); amphotericin B (3 less-prevalent Candida spp.) and caspofungin (4 Aspergillus spp.). Etest fluconazole ECVs could be good detectors of Candida non-WT isolates (59/61 Non-WT: 4 of 6 species).

Antifungal Resistance among Less Prevalent Candida Non-albicans and Other Yeasts versus Established and under Development Agents: A Literature Review

Fungal diseases and antifungal resistance continue to increase, including those caused by rare or emerging species. However, the majority of the published in vitro susceptibility data are for the most common fungal species. We reviewed the literature in order to pool reference minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) data (Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute—CLSI and European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility—EUCAST) for rare/non-prevalent Candida and other yeast species. MIC results were compared with those for Candida albicans, C. glabrata, and C. krusei. Data were listed for twenty rare and emerging Candida spp., including C. auris, as well as two Cryptococcus spp., two Trichosporon spp., Saccharomyces cerevisiae and five Malassezia spp. The best detectors of antimicrobial resistance are the breakpoints, which are not available for the less common Candida species. However, epidemiological cutoff values (ECVs/ECOFFs) have been calculated using merely in vitro data for both reference methods for various non-prevalent yeasts and recently the CLSI has established ECVs for other Candida species. The ECV could identify the non-wild type (NWT or mutants) isolates with known resistance mechanisms. Utilizing these ECVs, we were able to report additional percentages of NWT, especially for non-prevalent species, by analyzing the MIC distributions in the literature. In addition, since several antifungal drugs are under development, we are listing MIC data for some of these agents.

Antifungal susceptibility testing practices in mycology laboratories in France, 2018

A survey of mycology laboratories for antifungal susceptibility testing (AFST) was undertaken in France in 2018, to better understand the difference in practices between the participating centers and to identify the difficulties they may encounter as well as eventual gaps with published standards and guidelines. The survey captured information from 45 mycology laboratories in France on how they perform AFST (number of strains tested, preferred method, technical and quality aspects, interpretation of the MIC values, reading and interpretation difficulties). Results indicated that 86% of respondents used Etest as AFST method, with a combination of one to seven antifungal agents tested. Most of the participating laboratories used similar technical parameters to perform their AFST method and a large majority used, as recommended, internal and external quality assessments. Almost all the participating mycology laboratories (98%) reported difficulties to interpret the MIC values, especially when no clinical breakpoints are available. The survey highlighted that the current AFST practices in France need homogenization, particularly for MIC reading and interpretation.