Skip to main content
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems
  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About AAC
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • AAC Podcast
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems

User menu

  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
publisher-logosite-logo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About AAC
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • AAC Podcast
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
Susceptibility

Evaluation of MIC Strip Isavuconazole Test for Susceptibility Testing of Wild-Type and Non-Wild-Type Aspergillus fumigatus Isolates

Maiken Cavling Arendrup, Paul Verweij, Henrik Vedel Nielsen
Maiken Cavling Arendrup
aUnit of Mycology, Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark
bDepartment of Clinical Microbiology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark
cDepartment of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Paul Verweij
dDepartment of Medical Microbiology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Henrik Vedel Nielsen
aUnit of Mycology, Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.01659-16
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

We evaluated the MIC Strip Isavuconazole test against EUCAST E.Def 9.3 by using 40 wild-type and 39 CYP51A mutant Aspergillus fumigatus strains. The strip full inhibition endpoint (FIE) and 80% growth inhibition endpoint were determined by two independent readers, reader 1 (R1) and R2. The essential (within ±0, ±1, and ±2 twofold dilutions) and categorical agreements were best with the FIE (for R1/R2, 42%/41%, 75%/73%, and 90%/89% for essential agreement, and 91.1%/92.4% categorical agreement, with 6.3/8.9% very major errors and 0/1.3% major errors, respectively). The MIC Strip Isavuconazole test with the FIE appears to be useful.

TEXT

Antifungal susceptibility testing of Aspergillus fumigatus has become increasingly important with the emergence of azole resistance (1–6). EUCAST has set clinical breakpoints for isavuconazole and Aspergillus (7). For A. fumigatus, the clinical breakpoint is 1 mg/liter, one step lower than the epidemiological cutoff value (ECOFF) (2 mg/liter) because the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic breakpoint is 1 mg/liter and the MIC ranges for wild-type and resistant mutants overlap. Hence an MIC of 2 mg/liter may represent wild-type isolates as well as isolates with clinically relevant resistance mechanisms (1–3, 5, 8–15). In clinical practice, the adoption of a restrictive clinical breakpoint for interpretation of MICs generated by commercial tests may create a higher risk of misclassification unless the susceptibility test is very well standardized against the reference method and associated with low reader-to-reader and interlaboratory variations. An isavuconazole gradient strip (Etest; AB Biodisk, Solna, Sweden) was previously evaluated but is no longer available (16, 17). Thus, we evaluated the only commercially available isavuconazole susceptibility test, the MIC Strip Isavuconazole test (Liofilchem, Roseto degli Abruzzi, TE, Italy).

Forty wild-type and 39 CYP51A mutant A. fumigatus isolates with hot-spot alterations involving G54 (n = 10), M220 (n = 10), TR34/L98H (n = 9), and TR46/Y121F T289A (n = 10) were included. For the strip test (Liofilchem, Roseto degli Abruzzi, TE, Italy) a McFarland 0.5 conidial suspension and RPMI 1640 2% glucose agar (SSI Diagnostica, Hillerød, Denmark) were used. Strip MICs were read by two independent technicians (reader 1 [R1] and R2) blind to the CYP51A genotype at 24 and 48 h of incubation, with an 80% inhibition endpoint (80% IE) and a full inhibition endpoint (FIE). EUCAST testing was performed as previously recommended (7, 18). Four control strains were included (see Table S1 in the supplemental material) (7). The percent essential agreement between the tests was calculated. Isolates for which the MICs were above scale by both methods (EUCAST, >16 mg/liter; strip test, >32 mg/liter) were considered in agreement within ±0 twofold dilution. The categorical agreement between the methods was calculated as the percentage of isolates classified equally by both methods. Very major errors (VMEs) were defined as isolate categorization as resistant (R) by EUCAST but susceptible (S) by the strip test, and major errors (MEs) were defined as isolate categorization as S by the EUCAST method but R by the strip test.

Most isavuconazole strip MICs were above the recommended ranges for the two control Candida strains (Table S1). In contrast, the strip MICs for A. fumigatus ATCC 204305 and A. flavus CM1813 were within ±1 twofold dilution of the EUCAST MICs, suggesting better agreement for the Aspergillus strains and best when using the FIE for Aspergillus.

Nine isolates (11.4%) failed to grow sufficiently well to allow strip MIC reading on day 1, when, in general, zones were fuzzy and difficult to read. Day 2 MICs were lower with the 80% IE than with the FIE (Fig. 1). This was particularly evident for isolates harboring TR34/L98H alterations, for which the modal 80% IE MICs were 2 and 4 mg/liter, respectively but >32 mg/liter for both readers with the FIE. The essential agreement between the strip MICs from the two readers was highest, 97% at ±1 twofold dilution and 100% at ±2 twofold dilutions, when using the FIE (Table 1).

FIG 1
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 1

Isavuconazole strip MICs for wild-type and CYP51A mutant A. fumigatus isolates determined at 80% inhibition (left side) and full inhibition endpoints (right side) and by two independent readers, R1 (top) and R2 (bottom).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 1

Essential agreement between R1 and R2 of MIC Strip Isavuconazole test and between strip and EUCAST MICs

Isavuconazole MICs for isolates with wild-type CYP51A or single alterations at the G54 codon were all below the EUCAST ECOFF for the strip test with the FIE, as well as for EUCAST (Table 2). Likewise, the MICs for isolates harboring M220I alterations or TR34/L98H or TR46/Y121F T289A were all above the clinical breakpoint for both methods when the FIE was used for the strip test. However, the MICs for TR34/L98H isolates were higher when determined by the strip test (MIC range, >32 mg/liter) than when determined by EUCAST (MIC50 of 8 mg/liter; range, 4 to >16 mg/liter) (Table 2). The overall essential agreement between strip MICs and EUCAST MICs within ±0, ±1, and ±2 twofold dilutions was best when using the FIE (R1/R2: 42/41, 75/73, and 90/89%) than when using the 80% IE (R1/R2: 25/30, 66/70, and 91/91%). At least 95% essential agreement between the strip test and EUCAST within ±2 twofold dilutions was seen for all CYP51A genotypes except those harboring the TR34/L98H mechanism or the M220I alteration. Similarly, the categorical agreement was better for the FIE reading of the strip test (91.1 to 92.4% with 6.3 to 8.9% VMEs and 0 to 1.3% MEs) than for the 80% IE (89.9% with 10.1% VMEs and 0% MEs for both readers). VMEs included four isolates with the wild-type CYP51A genotype and one to four isolates harboring M220V, M220I, or G54R N248K alterations, respectively.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 2

Isavuconazole susceptibility of wild-type and CYP51A mutant A. fumigatus isolates determined by strip testa and EUCAST E.Def 9.3

The MIC Strip Isavuconazole test manufacturer recommends an 80% IE reading, but in this study, higher interreader essential agreement, better separation between wild-type and resistant strains, and greater essential and categorical agreement compared to EUCAST results were achieved with the FIE. Thus, the FIE criterion was found to be superior although the MICs for the recommended Candida control strains were out of range (7). When using the FIE, the essential agreements with EUCAST within ±1 and ±2 twofold dilutions were 73 to 75% and 89 to 90% and thus better than previously found for the isavuconazole Etest versus the CLSI method, even though challenged here with a strain collection including a significant number of non-wild-type isolates (16). The categorical agreement was >91% when interpreting the MICs according to EUCAST breakpoints, and notably, among the 6 to 9% VMEs, half were isolates with a wild-type CYP51A target gene that either may be harboring other resistance mechanisms or may be isolates that are truly susceptible but misclassified as R by the EUCAST reference method because of the conservative EUCAST susceptibility breakpoint (7). Finally, the separation between wild-type and TR34/L98H and TR46/Y121F T289A mutant isolates was greater for the MIC strip test, rendering it a potentially promising routine lab tool for detecting R environmental mutants, provided the FIE is used (2, 5, 19–21).

The CYP51A amino acid alterations have been associated with a codon-specific susceptibility pattern (4, 13). Here, both the strip and EUCAST isavuconazole MICs indeed straddled the clinical breakpoint for isolates harboring M220 alterations and for the G54R N24K double mutant, which will inevitably lead to the random classification of such isolates as S or R in routine testing. Hence, as long as clinical outcome data are unavailable for such mutants, other measures such itraconazole MIC testing or CYP51A sequencing should be undertaken to detect these genotypes.

This study has limitations. We investigated strip test reader-to-reader agreement but no other factors associated with variation, such as variation across different lots and brands of RPMI agar plates, inoculum preparation, etc. Therefore, the promising performance reported here needs confirmation in a multicenter study.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Isavuconazole MIC strips and the pure substance were kindly provided at no cost by Basilea. We thank Birgit Brandt and Désiré Mageme Nahimana for excellent technical assistance.

Maiken Cavling Arendrup has received research grants or speaker honoraria from Astellas, Basilea, Gilead, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and T2Biosystems. She is the current chairman of the EUCAST-AFST and has previously served on advisory boards for MSD (until 2014) and Pfizer (until 2012). Paul Verweij has received research grants from Astellas, Basilea, F2G, Gilead Sciences, Merck, and Pfizer; has been a consultant to Basilea, F2G, Gilead Sciences, Merck, and Pfizer; and has received speaker's fees from Basilea, Gilead Sciences, and Merck. Henrik Vedel Nielsen has no conflicts to declare.

FOOTNOTES

    • Received 31 July 2016.
    • Returned for modification 12 September 2016.
    • Accepted 26 October 2016.
    • Accepted manuscript posted online 31 October 2016.
  • Supplemental material for this article may be found at https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.01659-16 .

  • Copyright © 2016 Arendrup et al.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license .

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Bueid A,
    2. Howard SJ,
    3. Moore CB,
    4. Richardson MD,
    5. Harrison E,
    6. Bowyer P,
    7. Denning DW
    . 2010. Azole antifungal resistance in Aspergillus fumigatus: 2008 and 2009. J Antimicrob Chemother65:1–5. doi:10.1093/jac/dkq279.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  2. 2.↵
    1. Astvad KM,
    2. Jensen RH,
    3. Hassan TM,
    4. Mathiasen EG,
    5. Thomsen GM,
    6. Pedersen UG,
    7. Christensen M,
    8. Hilberg O,
    9. Arendrup MC
    . 2014. First detection of TR46/Y121F T289A and TR34/L98H alterations in Aspergillus fumigatus isolates from azole-naive patients in Denmark despite negative findings in the environment. Antimicrob Agents Chemother58:5096–5101. doi:10.1128/AAC.02855-14.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Mortensen KL,
    2. Jensen RH,
    3. Johansen HK,
    4. Skov M,
    5. Pressler T,
    6. Howard SJ,
    7. Leatherbarrow H,
    8. Mellado E,
    9. Arendrup MC
    . 2011. Aspergillus species and other molds in respiratory samples from patients with cystic fibrosis: a laboratory-based study with focus on Aspergillus fumigatus azole resistance. J Clin Microbiol49:2243–2251. doi:10.1128/JCM.00213-11.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. Howard SJ,
    2. Cerar D,
    3. Anderson MJ,
    4. Albarrag A,
    5. Fisher MC,
    6. Alessandro C,
    7. Laverdiere M,
    8. Arendrup MC,
    9. Perlin DS,
    10. Denning DW
    . 2009. Frequency and evolution of azole resistance in Aspergillus fumigatus associated with treatment failure. Emerg Infect Dis15:1068–1076. doi:10.3201/eid1507.090043.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  5. 5.↵
    1. Verweij PE,
    2. Chowdhary A,
    3. Melchers WJ,
    4. Meis JF
    . 2016. Azole resistance in Aspergillus fumigatus: can we retain the clinical use of mold-active antifungal azoles?Clin Infect Dis62:362–368. doi:10.1093/cid/civ885.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. van der Linden JWM,
    2. Arendrup MC,
    3. Warris A,
    4. Lagrou K,
    5. Pelloux H,
    6. Hauser PM,
    7. Chryssanthou E,
    8. Mellado E,
    9. Kidd SE,
    10. Tortorano AM,
    11. Dannaoui E,
    12. Gaustad P,
    13. Baddley JW,
    14. Uekötter A,
    15. Lass-Flörl C,
    16. Klimko N,
    17. Moore CB,
    18. Denning DW,
    19. Pasqualotto AC,
    20. Kibbler C,
    21. Arikan-Akdagli S,
    22. Andes D,
    23. Meletiadis J,
    24. Naumiuk L,
    25. Nucci M,
    26. Melchers WJ,
    27. Verweij PE
    . 2015. Prospective multicenter international surveillance of azole resistance in Aspergillus fumigatus. Emerg Infect Dis21:1041–1044. doi:10.3201/eid2106.140717.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Arendrup MC,
    2. Meletiadis J,
    3. Mouton JW,
    4. Guinea J,
    5. Cuenca-Estrella M,
    6. Lagrou K,
    7. Howard SJ
    , Subcommittee on Antifungal Susceptibility Testing (AFST) of the ESCMID European Committee for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST). 2016. EUCAST technical note on isavuconazole breakpoints for Aspergillus, itraconazole breakpoints for Candida and updates for the antifungal susceptibility testing method documents. Clin Microbiol Infect22:571.e1-4. doi:10.1016/j.cmi.2016.01.017.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  8. 8.↵
    1. Howard SJ,
    2. Lass-Flörl C,
    3. Cuenca-Estrella M,
    4. Gomez-Lopez A,
    5. Arendrup MC
    . 2013. Determination of isavuconazole susceptibility of Aspergillus and Candida species by the EUCAST method. Antimicrob Agents Chemother57:5426–5431. doi:10.1128/AAC.01111-13.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    1. Kidd SE,
    2. Goeman E,
    3. Meis JF,
    4. Slavin MA,
    5. Verweij PE
    . 2015. Multi-triazole-resistant Aspergillus fumigatus infections in Australia. Mycoses58:350–355. doi:10.1111/myc.12324.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Wu C-J,
    2. Wang H-C,
    3. Lee J-C,
    4. Lo H-J,
    5. Dai C-T,
    6. Chou P-H,
    7. Ko W-C,
    8. Chen Y-C
    . 2015. Azole-resistant Aspergillus fumigatus isolates carrying TR34 /L98H mutations in Taiwan. Mycoses58:544–549. doi:10.1111/myc.12354.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Wiederhold NP,
    2. Gil VG,
    3. Gutierrez F,
    4. Lindner JR,
    5. Albataineh MT,
    6. McCarthy DI,
    7. Sanders C,
    8. Fan H,
    9. Fothergill AW,
    10. Sutton DA
    . 2016. First detection of TR34 L98H and TR46 Y121F T289A Cyp51 mutations in Aspergillus fumigatus isolates in the United States. J Clin Microbiol54:168–171. doi:10.1128/JCM.02478-15.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. Jensen RH,
    2. Hagen F,
    3. Astvad KM,
    4. Tyron A,
    5. Meis JF,
    6. Arendrup MC
    . 2016. Azole resistant Aspergillus fumigatus in Denmark: a laboratory based study on resistance mechanisms and genotypes. Clin Microbiol Infect22:570.e1-9. doi:10.1016/j.cmi.2016.04.001.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  13. 13.↵
    1. Stensvold CR,
    2. Jørgensen LN,
    3. Arendrup MC
    . 2012. Azole-resistant invasive aspergillosis: relationship to agriculture. Curr Fungal Infect Rep6:178–191. doi:10.1007/s12281-012-0097-7.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  14. 14.↵
    1. Arendrup MC,
    2. Mavridou E,
    3. Mortensen KL,
    4. Snelders E,
    5. Frimodt-Møller N,
    6. Khan H,
    7. Melchers WJ,
    8. Verweij PE
    . 2010. Development of azole resistance in Aspergillus fumigatus during azole therapy associated with change in virulence. PLoS One5:e10080. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010080.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Snelders E,
    2. Huis In 't Veld RA,
    3. Rijs AJ,
    4. Kema GH,
    5. Melchers WJ,
    6. Verweij PE
    . 2009. Possible environmental origin of resistance of Aspergillus fumigatus to medical triazoles. Appl Environ Microbiol75:4053–4057. doi:10.1128/AEM.00231-09.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. 16.↵
    1. Guinea J,
    2. Peláez T,
    3. Recio S,
    4. Torres-Narbona M,
    5. Bouza E
    . 2008. In vitro antifungal activities of isavuconazole (BAL4815), voriconazole, and fluconazole against 1,007 isolates of zygomycete, Candida, Aspergillus, Fusarium, and Scedosporium species. Antimicrob Agents Chemother52:1396–1400. doi:10.1128/AAC.01512-07.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. 17.↵
    1. Thompson GR,
    2. Fothergill AW,
    3. Wiederhold NP,
    4. Vallor AC,
    5. Wickes BL,
    6. Patterson TF
    . 2008. Evaluation of Etest method for determining isavuconazole MICs for Cryptococcus gattii and Cryptococcus neoformans. Antimicrob Agents Chemother52:2959–2961. doi:10.1128/AAC.00646-08.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. 18.↵
    1. Arendrup MC,
    2. Howard S,
    3. Lass-Flörl C,
    4. Mouton JW,
    5. Meletiadis J,
    6. Cuenca-Estrella M
    . 2014. EUCAST testing of isavuconazole susceptibility in Aspergillus: comparison of results for inoculum standardization using conidium counting versus optical density. Antimicrob Agents Chemother58:6432–6436. doi:10.1128/AAC.03779-14.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. 19.↵
    1. van der Linden JW,
    2. Snelders E,
    3. Kampinga GA,
    4. Rijnders BJA,
    5. Mattsson E,
    6. Debets-Ossenkopp YJ,
    7. Kuijper EJ,
    8. van Tiel FH,
    9. Melchers WJ,
    10. Verweij PE
    . 2011. Clinical implications of azole resistance in Aspergillus fumigatus, The Netherlands, 2007–2009. Emerg Infect Dis17:1846–1854. doi:10.3201/eid1710.110226.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Steinmann J,
    2. Hamprecht A,
    3. Vehreschild MJ,
    4. Cornely OA,
    5. Buchheidt D,
    6. Spiess B,
    7. Koldehoff M,
    8. Buer J,
    9. Meis JF,
    10. Rath PM
    . 2015. Emergence of azole-resistant invasive aspergillosis in HSCT recipients in Germany. J Antimicrob Chemother70:1522–1526. doi:10.1093/jac/dku566.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Verweij PE,
    2. Mellado E,
    3. Melchers WJ
    . 2007. Multiple-triazole-resistant aspergillosis. N Engl J Med356:1481–1483. doi:10.1056/NEJMc061720.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Evaluation of MIC Strip Isavuconazole Test for Susceptibility Testing of Wild-Type and Non-Wild-Type Aspergillus fumigatus Isolates
Maiken Cavling Arendrup, Paul Verweij, Henrik Vedel Nielsen
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Dec 2016, 61 (1) e01659-16; DOI: 10.1128/AAC.01659-16

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Print

Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email

Thank you for sharing this Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Evaluation of MIC Strip Isavuconazole Test for Susceptibility Testing of Wild-Type and Non-Wild-Type Aspergillus fumigatus Isolates
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Evaluation of MIC Strip Isavuconazole Test for Susceptibility Testing of Wild-Type and Non-Wild-Type Aspergillus fumigatus Isolates
Maiken Cavling Arendrup, Paul Verweij, Henrik Vedel Nielsen
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Dec 2016, 61 (1) e01659-16; DOI: 10.1128/AAC.01659-16
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • TEXT
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

KEYWORDS

antifungal agents
Aspergillus fumigatus
Nitriles
Pyridines
triazoles
antifungal susceptibility testing
MIC
isavuconazole
gradient strip
EUCAST
Aspergillus fumigatus
Cyp51A mutants
wild type

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

  • About AAC
  • Editor in Chief
  • Editorial Board
  • Policies
  • For Reviewers
  • For the Media
  • For Librarians
  • For Advertisers
  • Alerts
  • AAC Podcast
  • RSS
  • FAQ
  • Permissions
  • Journal Announcements

Authors

  • ASM Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Article Types
  • Ethics
  • Contact Us

Follow #AACJournal

@ASMicrobiology

       

ASM Journals

ASM journals are the most prominent publications in the field, delivering up-to-date and authoritative coverage of both basic and clinical microbiology.

About ASM | Contact Us | Press Room

 

ASM is a member of

Scientific Society Publisher Alliance

 

American Society for Microbiology
1752 N St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 737-3600

Copyright © 2021 American Society for Microbiology | Privacy Policy | Website feedback

Print ISSN: 0066-4804; Online ISSN: 1098-6596