1887

Journal of Medical Microbiology logo

Volume 66, Issue 2

antifungal susceptibilities of species to liposomal amphotericin B, determined using CLSI broth microdilution, and amphotericin B deoxycholate, measured using the Etest Open Access

Abstract

The antifungal susceptibilities of 598 isolates of spp. (bloodstream and other sterile sites) to liposomal amphotericin B (L-AmB) amphotericin B (AmB) were determined. MICs were calculated using the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute broth microdilution (M27-A3) method for L-AmB and the Etest method for AmB. The MIC/MIC (µg ml) values for L-AmB broth microdilution and AmB Etest were 0.25/1 and 0.19/0.5, respectively. The overall essential agreement (±2 dilutions) was 91.5 %, ranging from 37.5 % () to 100 % ( and ). Categorical agreement between the two methods was categorized based on a previously published breakpoint (susceptible/resistant MIC cut-off of 1 µg ml). The overall categorical agreement at the 48 h reading was 97.3 %, ranging from 72.7 % () to 100 % (). Major and very major discrepancies occurred in 2.3 and 0.3 %, respectively. Spearman’s ρ was 0.48 (<0.0001). These results demonstrate the utility of the AmB Etest as a surrogate marker to predict the sensibility and resistance of spp. to L-AmB and thus to support its use in antifungal treatment.

  • Received:
  • Accepted:
  • Published Online:
Keyword(s): amphotericin B deoxycholate , Candida , CLSI broth microdilution , E-test and liposomal amphotericin B
© 2017 The Authors
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.000402
2017-02-01
2024-04-25
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jmm/66/2/213.html?itemId=/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.000402&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Lacerda JF, Oliveira CM. Diagnosis and treatment of invasive fungal infections focus on liposomal amphotericin B. Clin Drug Investig 2013; 33:5–14 [CrossRef]
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Horwitz E, Shavit O, Shouval R, Hoffman A, Shapiro M et al. Evaluating real-life clinical and economical burden of amphotericin-B deoxycholate adverse reactions. Int J Clin Pharm 2012; 34:611–617 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Mistro S, Maciel IM, de Menezes RG, Maia ZP, Schooley RT et al. Does lipid emulsion reduce amphotericin B nephrotoxicity? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Infect Dis 2012; 54:1774–1777 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Cifani C, Costantino S, Massi M, Berrino L. Commercially available lipid formulations of amphotericin B: are they bioequivalent and therapeutically equivalent?. Acta Biomed 2012; 83:154–163[PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Wade RL, Chaudhari P, Natoli JL, Taylor RJ, Nathanson BH et al. Nephrotoxicity and other adverse events among inpatients receiving liposomal amphotericin B or amphotericin B lipid complex. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2013; 76:361–367 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Ullmann AJ, Akova M, Herbrecht R, Viscoli C, Arendrup MC et al. ESCMID* guideline for the diagnosis and management of Candida diseases 2012: adults with haematological malignancies and after haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT). Clin Microbiol Infect 2012; 18:53–567 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Maertens J, Marchetti O, Herbrecht R, Cornely OA, Flückiger U et al. European guidelines for antifungal management in leukemia and hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients: summary of the ECIL 3–2009 update. Bone Marrow Transplant 2011; 46:709–718 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Pappas PG, Kauffman CA, Andes DR, Clancy CJ, Marr KA et al. Clinical practice guideline for the management of candidiasis: 2016 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis 2016; 62:e1e50 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Anaissie E, Paetznick V, Proffitt R, Adler-Moore J, Bodey GP. Comparison of the in vitro antifungal activity of free and liposome-encapsulated amphotericin B. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1991; 10:665–668[PubMed] [CrossRef]
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Jessup C, Reyes G, Fothergill A, Mccarthy D, Rinaldi M et al. A head-on comparison of the in vitro antifungal activity of conventional and lipid-based amphotericin B: a multicenter study. J Chemother 2000; 12:22–29 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Lass-Flörl C, Mayr A, Perkhofer S, Hinterberger G, Hausdorfer J et al. Activities of antifungal agents against yeasts and filamentous fungi: assessment according to the methodology of the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2008; 52:3637–3641 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Enoch DA, Ludlam HA, Brown NM. Invasive fungal infections: a review of epidemiology and management options. J Med Microbiol 2006; 55:809–818 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Saliba F, Dupont B. Renal impairment and amphotericin B formulations in patients with invasive fungal infections. Med Mycol 2008; 46:97–112 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Montagna MT, Lovero G, Coretti C, de Giglio O, Martinelli D et al. In vitro activities of amphotericin B deoxycholate and liposomal amphotericin B against 604 clinical yeast isolates. J Med Microbiol 2014; 63:1638–1643 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Tavanti A, Davidson AD, Gow NA, Maiden MC, Odds FC. Candida orthopsilosis and Candida metapsilosis spp. nov. to replace Candida parapsilosis groups II and III. J Clin Microbiol 2005; 43:284–292 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Romeo O, Scordino F, Pernice I, Lo Passo C, Criseo G. A multiplex PCR protocol for rapid identification of Candida glabrata and its phylogenetically related species Candida nivariensis and Candida bracarensis. J Microbiol Methods 2009; 79:117–120 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Lovero G, Borghi E, Balbino S, Cirasola D, De Giglio O et al. Molecular Identification and Echinocandin Susceptibility of Candida parapsilosis Complex Bloodstream Isolates in Italy, 2007-2014. PLoS One 2016; 26:e0150218
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute Reference Method for Broth Dilution Antifungal Susceptibility Testing of Yeasts, 3rd ed. M27-A3 Wayne, PA, USA: CLSI; 2008
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute Reference Method for Broth Dilution Antifungal Susceptibility Testing of Yeasts fourth informational supplement, M27-S4 Wayne, PA, USA: CLSI; 2012
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Diekema DJ, Messer SA, Boyken LB, Hollis RJ, Kroeger J et al. In vitro activity of seven systemically active antifungal agents against a large global collection of rare Candida species as determined by CLSI broth microdilution methods. J Clin Microbiol 2009; 47:3170–3177 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Fleck R, Dietz A, Hof H. In vitro susceptibility of Candida species to five antifungal agents in a German university hospital assessed by the reference broth microdilution method and Etest. J Antimicrob Chemother 2007; 59:767–771 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Ranque S, Lachaud L, Gari-Toussaint M, Michel-Nguyen A, Mallié M et al. Interlaboratory reproducibility of Etest amphotericin B and caspofungin yeast susceptibility testing and comparison with the CLSI method. J Clin Microbiol 2012; 50:2305–2309 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Cuenca-Estrella M, Gomez-Lopez A, Alastruey-Izquierdo A, Bernal-Martinez L, Cuesta I et al. Comparison of the Vitek 2 antifungal susceptibility system with the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) and European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) broth microdilution reference methods and with the Sensititre YeastOne and Etest techniques for in vitro detection of antifungal resistance in yeast isolates. J Clin Microbiol 2010; 48:1782–1786 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Clancy CJ, Nguyen MH. Correlation between in vitro susceptibility determined by E test and response to therapy with amphotericin B: results from a multicenter prospective study of candidemia. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1999; 43:1289–1290[PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Krogh-Madsen M, Arendrup MC, Heslet L, Knudsen JD. Amphotericin B and caspofungin resistance in Candida glabrata isolates recovered from a critically ill patient. Clin Infect Dis 2006; 42:938–944 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.000402
Loading
Invitro antifungal susceptibilities of Candida species to liposomal amphotericin B, determined using CLSI broth microdilution, and amphotericin B deoxycholate, measured using the Etest
J. Med. Microbiol. 66, 213 (2017); https://doi.org/10.1099/jmm.0.000402
/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.000402
/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.000402
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Most cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error