Wild-type MIC distributions and epidemiologic cutoff values for fluconazole and Candida: Time for new clinical breakpoints?

Current Fungal Infection Reports

Volumn 4, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 168-174

  Pfaller, Michael A ^a   Diekema, Daniel J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

Author keywords

Antifungal susceptibility testing; Candida; Clinical breakpoints; Epidemiologic cutoff values; Fluconazole

Indexed keywords

FLUCONAZOLE;

ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS; ANTIFUNGAL RESISTANCE; ANTIFUNGAL SUSCEPTIBILITY; ANTIMICROBIAL THERAPY; BLOODSTREAM INFECTION; BROTH DILUTION; CANDIDA; CANDIDA ALBICANS; CANDIDA GLABRATA; CANDIDA KRUSEI; CANDIDA PARAPSILOSIS; CANDIDA TROPICALIS; CANDIDEMIA; CANDIDIASIS; CLAVISPORA LUSITANIAE; CLINICAL BREAKPOINT; EPIDEMIOLOGIC CUTOFF VALUE; FUNGAL STRAIN; FUNGUS ISOLATION; INCUBATION TIME; INOCULATION; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INVASIVE CANDIDIASIS; MINIMUM INHIBITORY CONCENTRATION; NONHUMAN; PICHIA GUILLIERMONDII; REVIEW; SPECTROPHOTOMETRY; WILD TYPE;

EID: 78650208968     PISSN: 19363761     EISSN: 1936377X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s12281-010-0022-x     Document Type: Review

References (41)

1. Maertens JA: History of the development of azole derivatives. Clin Microbiol Infect 2004, 10(Suppl 1):1-10.
2. Sheehan DJ, Hitchcock CA, Sibley CM: Current and emerging azole antifungal agents. Clin Microbial Rev 1999, 12:40-79. (Pubitemid 29055953)
3. Pappas PG, Kauffman CA, Andes D, et al.: Clinical practice guidelines for the management of candidiasis: 2009 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis 2009, 48:503-535. These are the most recent clinical guidelines for the management of all forms of candidiasis.
4. Antoniadou A, Torres HA, Lewis RE, et al.: Candidemia in a tertiary care center: in vitro susceptibility and its association with outcome of initial antifungal therapy. Medicine 2003, 82:309-321. (Pubitemid 37229466)
5. Arikan S, Akova M, Hayran M, et al.: Correlation of in vitro fluconazole susceptibility with clinical outcome for severely ill patients with oropharyngeal candidiasis. Clin Infect Dis 1998, 26:903-908. (Pubitemid 28180327)
6. Baddley JW, Patel M, Bhavnani SM, et al.: Association of fluconazole pharmacodynamics with mortality in patients with candidemia. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2008, 52:3022-3028. This very well-done study confirms the importance of in vitro resistance to fluconazole.
7. Lee SC, Fung CP, Huang JS, et al.: Clinical correlates of antifungal macrodilution susceptibility test results for non-AIDS patients with severe Candida infections treated with fluconazole. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2000, 44:2715-2718.
8. Pfaller MA, Diekema DJ, Sheehan DJ: Interpretive breakpoints for fluconazole and Candida revisited: a blueprint for the future of antifungal susceptibility testing. Clin Microbiol Rev 2006, 19:435-447.
9. Rex JH, Bennett JE, Sugar AM, et al.: A randomized trial comparing fluconazole with amphotericin B for the treatment of candidemia in patients without neutropenia. N Engl J Med 1994, 331:1325-1330. (Pubitemid 24347001)
10. Rex JH, Rinaldi MG, Pfaller MA: Resistance of Candida species to fluconazole. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1995, 39:1-8.
11. Rex JH, Pfaller MA, Barry AL, et al.: Antifungal susceptibility testing of isolates from a randomized multicenter trial of fluconazole versus amphotericin B as treatment of nonneutropenic patients with candidemia. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1995, 39:40-44.
12. Rodriguez-Tudela JL, Almirante B, Rodriguez-Pando D, et al.: Correlation of the MIC and dose/MIC ratio of fluconazole to the therapeutic response of patients with mucosal candidiasis and candidemia. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2007, 51:3599-3604. This article documents the EUCAST approach to the development of CBPs for fluconazole.
13. Arendrup MC, Furrsted K, Gahrn-Hansen B, et al.: Semi-national surveillance of fungemia in Denmark 2004-2006: increasing incidence of fungemia and numbers of isolates with reduced azole susceptibility. Clin Microbiol Infect 2008, 14:487-494.
14. Chen YC, Chang SC, Luh KT, Hsieh WC: Stable susceptibility of Candida blood isolates to fluconazole despite increasing use during the past 10 years. J Antimicrob Chemother 2003, 52:71-77.
15. Clancy CJ, Yu VL, Monis AJ, et al.: Fluconazole MIC and the fluconazole dose/MIC ratio correlate with therapeutic response among patients with candidemia. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2005, 49:3171-3177. (Pubitemid 41060556)
16. Hajjeh RA, Sofair AN, Harrison LH, et al.: Incidence of bloodstream infections due to Candida species and in vitro susceptibilities of isolates collected from 1998 to 2000 in a population-based active surveillance program. J Clin Microbiol 2004, 42:1519-1527.
17. Pfaller MA, Diekema DJ: The epidemiology of invasive candidiasis: a persistent public health problem. Clin Microbiol Rev 2007, 20:133-163. This is a comprehensive review of the epidemiology of invasive candidiasis.
18. Pfaller MA, Diekema DJ, Gibbs DL, et al.: Results from the ARTEMIS DISK Global Antifungal Surveillance Study, 1997 to 2005: an 8.5-year analysis of susceptibilities of Candida species and other yeast species to fluconazole and voriconazole determined by CLSI standardized disk diffusion testing. J Clin Microbiol 2007, 45:1735-1745.
19. Sandven P, Beranger L, Digranes A, et al.: Candidemia in Norway (1991 to 2003): results from a nationwide study. J Clin Microbiol 2006, 44:1977-1981.
20. Tortorano AM, Kibbler C, Peman J, et al.: Candidemia in Europe: epidemiology and resistance. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2006, 27:359-366.
21. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute: Reference method for broth dilution antifungal susceptibility testing of yeasts: approved standard, third edition, M27-A3. Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; 2008. This is the most recent version of the CLSI broth dilution method for testing of yeasts.
22. Subcommittee on Antifungal Susceptibility Testing (AFST) of the ESCMID European Committee for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST): EUCAST definitive document EDef 7.1: method for the determination of broth dilution MICs of antifungal agents for fermentative yeasts. Clin Microbiol Infect 2008, 14:398-405.This is the most recent version of the EUCAST broth dilution method for testing of yeasts.
23. European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing - Subcommittee on Antifungal Susceptibility Testing (EUCASTAFST): EUCAST technical note on fluconazole. Clin Microbiol Infect 2008, 14:193-195. This EUCAST publication gives ECVs and CBPs for fluconazole and Candida.
24. Espinel-Ingroff A, Barchiesi F, Cuenca-Estrella M, et al.: International and multicenter comparison of EUCAST and CLSI M27-A2 broth microdilution methods for testing susceptibilities of Candida spp. to fluconazole, itraconazole, posaconazole, and voriconazole. J Clin Microbiol 2005, 43:3884-3889. (Pubitemid 41129676)
25. Rodriguez-Tudela JL, Donnelly JP, Pfaller MA, et al.: Statistical analyses of correlation between fluconazole MICs for Candida spp. assessed by standard methods set forth by the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (E.Dis. 7.1) and CLSI (M27-A2). J Clin Microbiol 2007, 45:109-111. This article demonstrates the comparability of CLSI and EUCAST MIC results for fluconazole.
26. Chryssanthou E, Cuenca-Estrella M: Comparison of the Antifungal Susceptibility Testing Subcommittee of the European Committee on Antibiotic Susceptibility Testing proposed standard and the E-test with NCCLS broth microdilution method for voriconazole and caspofungin susceptibility testing of yeast species. J Clin Microbiol 2002, 40:3841-3844.
27. Cuenca-Estrella M, Lee-Yong W, Ciblak MA, et al.: Comparative evaluation of NCCLS M27-A and EUCAST broth microdilution procedures for antifungal susceptibility testing of Candida species. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2002, 46:3644-3647. (Pubitemid 35192943)
28. Cuesta I, Bielza C, Larranaga P, et al.: Data mining validation of fluconazole breakpoints established by the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2009, 53:2949-2954. This article presents statistical validation of EUCAST breakpoints for fluconazole.
29. Rex JH, Pfaller MA: Has antifungal susceptibility testing come of age? Clin Infect Dis 2002, 35:982-989.
30. Rex JH, Pfaller MA, Galgiani JN, et al.: Development of interpretive breakpoints for antifungal susceptibility testing: conceptual framework and analysis of in vitro-in vivo correlation data for fluconazole, itraconazole, and Candida infections. Clin Infect Dis 1997, 24:235-247. (Pubitemid 127774263)
31. Ostrosky-Zeichner L, Rex JH, Pfaller MA, et al.: Rationale for reading fluconazole MICs at 24 hours rather than 48 hours when testing Candida spp. by the CLSI M27-A2 standard method. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2008, 52:4175-4177. This article demonstrates the application of 24-hour CLSI breakpoints for fluconazole.
32. Pfaller MA, Boyken LB, Hollis RJ, et al.: Validation of 24-hour fluconazole MIC readings versus the CLSI 48-hour broth microdilution reference method: results from a global Candida antifungal surveillance program. J Clin Microbiol 2008, 44:3585-3590. This article demonstrates the comparability of 24-hour and 48-hour MIC readings for fluconazole using the CLSI method.
33. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute: Reference method for broth dilution antifungal susceptibility testing of yeasts: informational supplement M27-S3. Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; 2008.
34. Turnidge J, Kahlmeter G, Kronvall G: Statistical characterization of bacterial wild-type MIC value distributions and determination of epidemiological cut-off values. Clin Microbiol Infect 2006, 12:418-425.
35. Turnidge J, Paterson DL: Setting and revising antibacterial susceptibility breakpoints. Clin Microbiol Rev 2007, 20:391-408. This article presents an excellent overview of the complexities in establishing and revising susceptibility breakpoints.
36. Arendrup MC, Kahlmeter G, Rodriguez-Tudela JL, Donnelly JP: Breakpoints for susceptibility testing should not divide wild-type distributions of important target species. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2009, 53:1628-1629.
37. Kahlmeter G, Brown DFJ: Harmonization of antimicrobial breakpoints in Europe - Can it be achieved? Clin Microbiol Newsletter 2004, 26:187-192.
38. Kahlmeter G, Brown DFJ, Goldstein FW, et al.: European harmonization of MIC breakpoints for antimicrobial susceptibility testing of bacteria. J Antimicrob Chemother 2003, 52:145-148. (Pubitemid 36986868)
39. Pfaller MA, Diekema DJ, Ghannoum MA, et al.: Wild-type MIC distribution and epidemiological cutoff values for Aspergillus fumigatus and three triazoles as determined by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute broth microdilution methods. J Clin Microbiol 2009, 27:3142-3146.
40. Pfaller MA, Boyken L, Hollis RJ, et al.: Wild-type MIC distributions and epidemiological cutoff values for the echinocandins and Candida spp. J Clin Microbiol 2010, 48:52-56. This is the first example of ECVs for echinocandins using CLSI methods.
41. Simjee S, Silley P, Werling HO, Bywater R: Potential confusion regarding the term "resistance" in epidemiological surveys. J Antimicrob Chemother 2008, 61:228-229.