Comparison of micafungin MICs as determined by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute broth microdilution method (M27-A3 document) and Etest for Candida spp. isolates.
Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2011;
70:54-9. [PMID:
21513843 DOI:
10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2010.12.010]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/08/2010] [Revised: 12/06/2010] [Accepted: 12/10/2010] [Indexed: 11/20/2022]
Abstract
Micafungin Etest and Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) MICs were compared for 337 Candida spp. isolates. The performance of Etest for testing the susceptibilities of Candida spp. to micafungin was evaluated by the assessment of both categorical (CA) and essential (EA) agreements. The CA was evaluated 2 ways: (i) by the ability of Etest to separate resistant (nontreatable) from susceptible (treatable) isolates by using the newly adjusted species-specific micafungin clinical breakpoints (CBPs) that are available for most of the common species tested and (ii) by the ability to separate wild type (WT) from non-WT isolates or those harboring FKS mutations (with reduced echinocandin susceptibility) by using micafungin epidemiologic cutoff values (ECVs). Etest and CLSI MICs were in EA when the MICs were within 2 log(2) dilutions. Based on agreement percentages, our data indicated that Etest is suitable to test micafungin for most of the Candida species evaluated (overall EA 94.7%; overall CA according to CBPs 97.2% and according to ECVs 97.3%). However, the number of resistant isolates was small, so further evaluations are needed with a higher number of such isolates including more resistant or those with known mechanisms of resistance (non-WT).
Collapse