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

Comparative Evaluation of Etest, EUCAST, and CLSI Methods for Amphotericin B, Voriconazole, and Posaconazole against Clinically Relevant Fusarium Species

Abdullah M. S. Al-Hatmi, Anne-Cécile Normand, Stephane Ranque, Renaud Piarroux, G. Sybren de Hoog, Joseph Meletiadis, Jacques F. Meis
Abdullah M. S. Al-Hatmi
aCBS-KNAW Fungal Biodiversity Centre, Utrecht, The Netherlands
bInstitute of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
cDirectorate General of Health Services, Ministry of Health, Ibri Hospital, Ibri, Oman
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Anne-Cécile Normand
dAix-Marseille University, APHM, CHU Timone, IP-TPT, Parasitology-Mycology, Marseille, France
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Stephane Ranque
dAix-Marseille University, APHM, CHU Timone, IP-TPT, Parasitology-Mycology, Marseille, France
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Stephane Ranque
Renaud Piarroux
dAix-Marseille University, APHM, CHU Timone, IP-TPT, Parasitology-Mycology, Marseille, France
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
G. Sybren de Hoog
aCBS-KNAW Fungal Biodiversity Centre, Utrecht, The Netherlands
bInstitute of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Joseph Meletiadis
eClinical Microbiology Laboratory, Attikon University Hospital, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
fDepartment of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jacques F. Meis
gDepartment of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
hDepartment of Medical Microbiology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Jacques F. Meis
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.01671-16
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

We compared EUCAST and CLSI methods versus Etest for antifungal susceptibility testing of 20 clinically relevant Fusarium species against amphotericin B, posaconazole, and voriconazole. The median Etest amphotericin B and posaconazole MICs were 1 dilution higher than the median EUCAST and the CLSI MICs. The essential agreement (within ±1/±2 dilutions) was 60/90%, 80/95%, and 70/85% between the Etest and EUCAST methods and 80/95%, 75/95%, and 45/100% between the Etest and CLSI methods for amphotericin B, voriconazole, and posaconazole, respectively. The categorical agreement was >85%. Etest can be used for antifungal susceptibility testing of Fusarium species.

TEXT

Opportunistic infections due to Fusarium species are increasingly reported due to the rising numbers of immunocompromised patients, although immunocompetent individuals can also be infected (1). The most common opportunists are members of the F. solani species complex (SC), followed by F. oxysporum SC and F. fujikuroi SC (28). First-line antifungal treatment options are amphotericin B and voriconazole (2), while posaconazole has been recommended as salvage therapy. Posaconazole shows some in vitro activity against Fusarium spp., depending on the species (2, 3). Although Fusarium spp. are resistant to many antifungals, we previously reported that this resistance was species specific, and species identification is essential for early antifungal treatment (2, 4).

Reference methods for antifungal susceptibility testing (AFST) and breakpoints (BPs) for Candida and Aspergillus spp. have been developed (5). However, species-specific BPs have not yet been established for Fusarium spp. Recently, Espinel-Ingroff et al. (6) established the epidemiological cutoff values (ECVs) for Fusarium spp. in order to differentiate wild-type from non-wild-type isolates. Although a reproducible method for AFST of Fusarium spp. has been described by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) (7) and by the European Committee for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) (8), both are based on broth microdilution (BMD) and are time-consuming. Furthermore, the limited AFST data and the lack of comparison of the two reference BMD methods for Fusarium spp. prompted us to study the agreement between the CLSI and EUCAST methods for testing amphotericin B and triazoles against Fusarium spp. In addition, the Etest has been suggested as an alternative approach for AFST of amphotericin B or triazoles for non-Aspergillus molds in the clinical laboratory (9), but data on Fusarium spp. are limited. The objective of this study was to assess whether Etest could accurately measure the MICs of amphotericin B, voriconazole, and posaconazole for clinical Fusarium isolates in comparison with the CLSI and EUCAST methods.

Twenty clinical Fusarium isolates belonging to the species F. acutatum, F. chlamydosporum, F. delphinoides, F. dimerum, F. equiseti, F. fujikuroi, F. solani SC 5 (FSSC5), F. incarnatum, F. keratoplasticum, F. lichenicola, F. napiforme, F. oxysporum, F. petroliphilum, F. proliferatum, F. sacchari, FSSC6, F. subglutinans, F. temperatum, F. thapsinum, and F. verticillioides were subcultured on Sabouraud glucose agar (SDA, Difco) with 0.02% chloramphenicol for 5 to 7 days at 35°C to 37°C. Molecular identification was performed using translation elongation factor-1α (TEF1α) and the RNA polymerase (rPB2), as previously described (10). Strains were identified using the GenBank BLAST, Fusarium MLST, and Fusarium ID databases.

Susceptibility testing was carried using three different methods: BMD as described in the CLSI document M38-A2 (7), EUCAST E.Def 9.3 (8), and Etest manufacturer's guide (bioMérieux SA, Marcy-l’Étoile, France). Drug concentration ranges in BMD for amphotericin B (Bristol-Myers Squibb, Woerden, The Netherlands), voriconazole (Pfizer Central, Sandwich, UK), and posaconazole (Merck, Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA) were 0.016 to 32 μg/ml. For the CLSI M38-A2 and the EUCAST E.Def 9.3, the MICs of amphotericin B, voriconazole, and posaconazole were determined with an inverted magnifying mirror after 48 h at 35°C as the lowest drug concentration with complete inhibition of growth. For the Etest, the inoculum concentration was adjusted to 0.5 McFarland standard (equivalent to 1 × 106 to 5 × 106 CFU/ml). Then, 0.5 ml of this suspension was inoculated onto plates containing RPMI 1640 agar with 2% glucose using a cotton swab. After a period of 15 min, the Etest strips were applied and incubated for 48 h at 35°C. The reading of the Etest MICs was performed as described and illustrated in the Etest guide, and the MIC was determined as the concentration at the intercept of the elliptical complete inhibition zone using four ATCC strains (Aspergillus flavus ATCC 204304, A. flavus ATCC 204305, Candida parapsilosis ATCC 22019, and Candida krusei ATCC 6258) as quality controls. To directly compare the Etest MICs with the EUCAST and CLSI MICs, the Etest MICs were converted to the nearest highest 2-fold dilution value that matched the CLSI and EUCAST 2-fold dilution scheme. MICs were transformed to log2 values, and differences were assessed statistically with a paired t test. The median and range of the log2 MIC differences between the methods were calculated. Microbiologically significant differences between the methods were assessed, calculating the agreement within 1 and 2 2-fold dilutions. Finally, clinically significant differences were assessed by calculating categorical agreement among the three methods using previously determined ECVs for Fusarium spp., namely 4 μg/ml for amphotericin B, 4 μg/ml for voriconazole, and 2 μg/ml for posaconazole.

Table 1 summarizes the in vitro susceptibilities of 20 isolates of Fusarium spp. to amphotericin B, voriconazole, and posaconazole. The data are presented as MICs, MIC ranges, median MICs, and MIC90. CLSI MIC results of amphotericin B spanned a narrow range of 1 to 4 μg/ml. Overall, amphotericin B and voriconazole showed the most potent activity with all three methods. The median, range, and MIC90 with Etest, EUCAST, and CLSI were 2, 0.25 to >32, and 16 μg/ml; 1, 0.25 to 8, and 8 μg/ml; and 1, 0.5 to 4, and 4 μg/ml for amphotericin B; and 2, 0.25 to >32, and 4 μg/ml; 2, 0.5 to 16, and 4 μg/ml; and 2, 0.5 to >16, and 4 μg/ml for voriconazole, respectively. Posaconazole exhibited high MICs against F. chlamydosporum, F. dimerum, F. incarnatum, F. napiforme, F. oxysporum, F. proliferatum, F. thapsinum, and all the reported species within F. solani species complexes, with median, range, and MIC90 of 32, 0.25 to >32, and 32 μg/ml for Etest, 16, 0.5 to >16, and 16 μg/ml for the EUCAST method, and 8, 0.25 to >16, and 16 μg/ml for the CLSI method, respectively.

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

MIC, median, range, and MIC90 obtained by antifungal testing of amphotericin B, voriconazole, and posaconazole for 20 Fusarium species as determined by the Etest, EUCAST, and CLSI methods at 48 h of incubation

Table 2 shows the analysis of the essential agreement (EA) between 48-h CLSI, EUCAST, and Etest MICs for each drug tested. The levels of agreement (within ±2 dilutions) between the results of the CLSI and the EUCAST method were 100% for amphotericin B, voriconazole, and posaconazole. The levels of agreement (within ±2 dilutions) between the results of the EUCAST method and the Etest were 100% for posaconazole and 95% for both amphotericin B and voriconazole. The agreement between the CLSI and the Etest was 90% for amphotericin B, 95% for voriconazole, and 85% for posaconazole. Amphotericin B and posaconazole MICs with the Etest tended to be significantly higher (P = 0.007 to 0.097) (median dilution difference, 1 to 1.5) than those of the two reference methods, indicating that Etest MIC distribution is shifted to the right compared to the EUCAST and the CLSI MIC distributions. However, the most of the differences remained within ±2 dilutions. The comparison of MICs obtained with the three methods resulted in a considerable Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC) ranging from 0.71 to 0.97. The correlation among Etest versus CLSI and Etest versus EUCAST methodologies to posaconazole was higher (0.89 and 0.97) than amphotericin B (0.71 and 0.86) and voriconazole (0.77 and 0.76) (Table 2). Moreover, the PCCs were statistically significant (P < 0.0001), indicating a good correlation between the MICs obtained by the CLSI or EUCAST and the Etest. The categorical agreement (CA) for all three methods and drugs was >85%, with slightly higher levels of agreement found between the Etest and the EUCAST (90 to 100%) than the CLSI (85 to 95%).

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

Comparison among the three methods for antifungal susceptibility testing of Fusarium spp.

Our results indicated a good agreement between the three methods. The EA and CA between the Etest and the two reference methods were high for all three drugs (≥85%). The MIC results for amphotericin B spanned a range of 0.25 to 8 μg/ml with the CLSI and the EUCAST method and a wider range of 0.25 to >32 with the Etest. Wide MIC ranges were also found with posaconazole and voriconazole and all three methodologies, indicating considerable interspecies variations. High MICs (>4 μg/ml) were found for amphotericin B with F. keratoplasticum, F. napiforme, and FSSC6 for voriconazole with F. petrophilum and FSSC6 and for posaconazole with most species except F. acutatum, F. delphinoides, F. equiseti, F. fujikuroi, F. sacchari, F. subglutinans, F. temperatum, and F. verticillioides. Our results were comparable to those of other studies using BMD testing (1, 2, 11–16). Posaconazole displayed high MIC results, with values ranging from 0.25 to over 32 μg/ml against Fusarium species, with little difference when BMD and Etest methods were compared, which is in agreement with previously reported data (2, 17).

Although posaconazole showed high MICs for most isolates in the present study, case reports have demonstrated successful treatment of fusariosis with this drug. In one case report, F. solani did not respond to treatment with natamycin and amphotericin B but responded to posaconazole with a MIC of 1 μg/ml, and the patient recovered completely (18). Tu et al. (19) describes 3 cases of keratitis due to F. solani successfully treated with posaconazole. In another publication, an HIV-positive patient had onychomycosis due to F. falciforme and was successfully treated with posaconazole with an MIC of 0.5 μg/ml (20). In addition, Fusarium peritonitis and keratitis were treated with posaconazole (21, 22). Thus, posaconazole may be effective against isolates with low MICs (≤1 μg/ml).

Recently, Espinel-Ingroff et al. (6) used the CLSI methodology to determine the epidemiological cutoff values (ECVs) for two Fusarium species complexes, namely, F. oxysporum and F. solani, and F. verticillioides of the fujikuroi SC for amphotericin B, itraconazole, voriconazole, and posaconazole. However, no ECVs for rare Fusarium species were determined in that study. A comparison of CLSI and EUCAST versus Etest was performed for filamentous fungi, including a few strains of Fusarium (9, 23–26). Two studies compared CLSI and Etest: Lamoth and Alexander (9) studied 34 clinical Fusarium isolates with 94% agreement for amphotericin B and 100% for voriconazole and posaconazole, respectively, whereas Debourgogne et al. (27) reported lower overall agreement in FSSC only, with 73% for amphotericin B and 92% for voriconazole. Our study included molecularly identified Fusarium spp., and we also found high levels of agreement.

In conclusion, Etest overall resulted in 1-dilution-higher MICs than the reference methods, with most differences being within 2 dilutions, which may lead to errors if same breakpoints will be applied. However, the categorical agreement was high (>85%) using previously published ECVs. Etest can be used for routine susceptibility testing of amphotericin B, voriconazole, and posaconazole for Fusarium species. Further work is warranted in order to establish clinical breakpoints for Fusarium.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study was partially funded by the Ministry of Health, Oman (formal agreement no. 28/2014). A. M. S. Al-Hatmi received a Ph.D. scholarship from the Ministry of Health, Oman.

J. F. Meis received grants from Astellas, Basilea, and Merck. He has been a consultant to Astellas, Basilea, and Merck and received speaker's fees from Merck, United Medical, and Gilead Sciences. J. Meletiadis received research grants from Gilead, Pfizer, Astellas, and MSD and speaker's fees from Astellas and Gilead. All other authors declare no conflicts of interest.

FOOTNOTES

    • Received 1 August 2016.
    • Returned for modification 22 September 2016.
    • Accepted 20 October 2016.
    • Accepted manuscript posted online 24 October 2016.
  • Copyright © 2016 American Society for Microbiology.

All Rights Reserved .

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Al-Hatmi AMS,
    2. Meis JF,
    3. de Hoog GS
    . 2016. Fusarium: molecular diversity and intrinsic drug resistance. PLoS Pathog12:1. doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1005464.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  2. 2.↵
    1. Al-Hatmi AM,
    2. van Diepeningen AD,
    3. Curfs-Breuker I,
    4. de Hoog GS,
    5. Meis JF
    . 2015. Specific antifungal susceptibility profiles of opportunists in the Fusarium fujikuroi complex. J Antimicrob Chemother70:1068–6. doi:10.1093/jac/dku505.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Taj-Aldeen SJ,
    2. Salah H,
    3. Al-Hatmi AM,
    4. Hamed M,
    5. Theelen B,
    6. van Diepeningen AD,
    7. Boekhout T,
    8. Lass-Flörl C
    . 2016. In vitro resistance of clinical Fusarium species to amphotericin B and voriconazole using the EUCAST antifungal susceptibility method. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis85:438–443. doi:10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2016.05.006.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  4. 4.↵
    1. Al-Hatmi AM,
    2. Normand AC,
    3. van Diepeningen AD,
    4. Hendrickx M,
    5. de Hoog GS,
    6. Piarroux R
    . 2015. Rapid identification of clinical members of Fusarium fujikuroi complex using MALDI-TOF MS. Future Microbiol10:1939–1952. doi:10.2217/fmb.15.108.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  5. 5.↵
    1. Arendrup M,
    2. Posteraro B,
    3. Sanguinetti M,
    4. Guinea J
    . 2015. The state-of-the-art mycology laboratory: visions of the future. Curr Fungal Infect Rep9:37–51. doi:10.1007/s12281-014-0212-z.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  6. 6.↵
    1. Espinel-Ingroff A,
    2. Colombo AL,
    3. Cordoba S,
    4. Dufresne PJ,
    5. Fuller J,
    6. Ghannoum M,
    7. Gonzalez GM,
    8. Guarro J,
    9. Kidd SE,
    10. Meis JF,
    11. Melhem TM,
    12. Pelaez T,
    13. Pfaller MA,
    14. Szeszs MW,
    15. Takahaschi JP,
    16. Tortorano AM,
    17. Wiederhold NP,
    18. Turnidge J
    . 2016. An international evaluation of MIC distributions and ECV definition for Fusarium species identified by molecular methods for the CLSI broth microdilution method. Antimicrob Agents Chemother60:1079–1084. doi:10.1128/AAC.02456-15.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. 2008. Reference method for broth dilution antifungal susceptibility testing of filamentous fungi; approved standard, 2nd ed. CLSI document M38-A2. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, Wayne, PA.
  8. 8.↵
    1. Arendrup MC,
    2. Guinea J,
    3. Cuenca-Estrella M,
    4. Meletiadis J,
    5. Mouton JW,
    6. Lagrou K,
    7. Howard SJ
    , Subcommittee on Antifungal Susceptibility Testing (AFST) of the ESCMID European Committee for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST). 2015. EUCAST definitive document E.Def 9.3. Method for the determination of broth dilution minimum inhibitory concentrations of antifungal agents for conidia forming moulds version 9.3. European Committee for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing, Växjö, Sweden. http://www.eucast.org/fileadmin/src/media/PDFs/EUCAST_files/AFST/Files/EUCAST_E_Def_9_3_Mould_testing_definitive.pdf .
  9. 9.↵
    1. Lamoth F,
    2. Alexander BD
    . 2015. Comparing Etest and broth microdilution for antifungal susceptibility testing of the most-relevant pathogenic molds. J Clin Microbiol53:3176–3181. doi:10.1128/JCM.00925-15.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. 10.↵
    1. Al-Hatmi AM,
    2. Mirabolfathy M,
    3. Hagen F,
    4. Normand AC,
    5. Stielow JB,
    6. Karami-Osbo R,
    7. van Diepeningen AD,
    8. Meis JF,
    9. de Hoog GS
    . 2016. DNA barcoding, MALDI-TOF and AFLP data support Fusarium ficicrescens as a distinct species within the F. fujikuroi species complex. Fungal Biol120:265–278. doi:10.1016/j.funbio.2015.08.001.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  11. 11.↵
    1. Alastruey-Izquierdo A,
    2. Cuenca-Estrella M,
    3. Monzón A,
    4. Mellado E,
    5. Rodríguez-Tudela JL
    . 2008. Antifungal susceptibility profile of clinical Fusarium spp. isolates identified by molecular methods. J Antimicrob Chemother61:805–809. doi:10.1093/jac/dkn022.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  12. 12.↵
    1. Azor M,
    2. Gené J,
    3. Cano J,
    4. Guarro J
    . 2007. Universal in vitro antifungal resistance of genetic clades of the Fusarium solani species complex. Antimicrob Agents Chemother51:1500–1503. doi:10.1128/AAC.01618-06.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    1. Azor M,
    2. Gené J,
    3. Cano J,
    4. Sutton DA,
    5. Fothergill AW,
    6. Rinaldi MG,
    7. Guarro J
    . 2008. In vitro antifungal susceptibility and molecular characterization of clinical isolates of Fusarium verticillioides (F. moniliforme) and Fusarium thapsinum. Antimicrob Agents Chemother52:2228–2231. doi:10.1128/AAC.00176-08.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. 14.↵
    1. Tortorano AM,
    2. Prigitano A,
    3. Dho G,
    4. Esposto MC,
    5. Gianni C,
    6. Grancini A,
    7. Ossi C,
    8. Viviani MA
    . 2008. Species distribution and in vitro antifungal susceptibility patterns of 75 clinical isolates of Fusarium spp. from northern Italy. Antimicrob Agents Chemother52:2683–2685. doi:10.1128/AAC.00272-08.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    1. Tortorano AM,
    2. Richardson M,
    3. Roilides E,
    4. van Diepeningen A,
    5. Caira M,
    6. Munoz P,
    7. Johnson E,
    8. Meletiadis J,
    9. Pana ZD,
    10. Lackner M,
    11. Verweij P,
    12. Freiberger T,
    13. Cornely OA,
    14. Arikan-Akdagli S,
    15. Dannaoui E,
    16. Groll AH,
    17. Lagrou K,
    18. Chakrabarti A,
    19. Lanternier F,
    20. Pagano L,
    21. Skiada A,
    22. Akova M,
    23. Arendrup MC,
    24. Boekhout T,
    25. Chowdhary A,
    26. Cuenca-Estrella M,
    27. Guinea J,
    28. Guarro J,
    29. de Hoog S,
    30. Hope W,
    31. Kathuria S,
    32. Lortholary O,
    33. Meis JF,
    34. Ullmann AJ,
    35. Petrikkos G,
    36. Lass-Flörl C
    . 2014. ESCMID and ECMM joint guidelines on diagnosis and management of hyalohyphomycosis: Fusarium spp., Scedosporium spp. and others. Clin Microbiol Infect20(Suppl 3):27–46. doi:10.1111/1469-0691.12465.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  16. 16.↵
    1. Al-Hatmi AM,
    2. Meletiadis J,
    3. Curfs-Breuker I,
    4. Bonifaz A,
    5. Meis JF,
    6. De Hoog GS
    . 2016. In vitro combinations of natamycin with voriconazole, itraconazole and micafungin against clinical Fusarium isolates causing keratitis. J Antimicrob Chemother71:953–955. doi:10.1093/jac/dkv421.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Iqbal NJ,
    2. Boey A,
    3. Park BJ,
    4. Brandt ME
    . 2008. Determination of in vitro susceptibility of ocular Fusarium spp. isolates from keratitis cases and comparison of Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute M38-A2 and E test methods. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis62:348–350. doi:10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2008.07.003.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Sponsel WE,
    2. Graybill JR,
    3. Nevarez HL,
    4. Dang D
    . 2002. Ocular and systemic posaconazole (SCH-56592) treatment of invasive Fusarium solani keratitis and endophthalmitis. Br J Ophthalmol84:829–830.
    OpenUrl
  19. 19.↵
    1. Tu EY,
    2. McCartney DL,
    3. Beatty RF,
    4. Springer KL,
    5. Levy J,
    6. Edward D
    . 2007. Successful treatment of resistant ocular fusariosis with posaconazole (SCH-56592). Am J Ophthalmol143:222–227. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2006.10.048.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  20. 20.↵
    1. Al-Hatmi AMS,
    2. Bonifaz A,
    3. Calderon L,
    4. Curfs-Breuker I,
    5. Meis JF,
    6. Diepeningen AD,
    7. de Hoog GS
    . 2015. Proximal subungual onychomycosis caused by Fusarium falciforme successfully cured with posaconazole. Br J Dermatol173:253–525. doi:10.1111/bjd.13589.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  21. 21.↵
    1. Shah PJ,
    2. Bergman S,
    3. Vegi S,
    4. Sundareshan V
    . 2014. Fusarium peritonitis successfully managed with posaconazole and catheter removal. Perit Dial Int34:566–568. doi:10.3747/pdi.2013.00142.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  22. 22.↵
    1. Altun A,
    2. Kurna SA,
    3. Sengor T,
    4. Altun G,
    5. Olcaysu OO,
    6. Aki SF,
    7. Simsek MH
    . 2014. Effectiveness of posaconazole in recalcitrant fungal keratitis resistant to conventional antifungal drugs. Case Rep Ophthalmol Med2014:701653. doi:10.1155/2014/701653.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  23. 23.↵
    1. Szekely A,
    2. Johnson EM,
    3. Warnock DW
    . 1999. Comparison of E-test and broth microdilution methods for antifungal drug susceptibility testing of molds. J Clin Microbiol37:1480–1483.
  24. 24.↵
    1. Martos AI,
    2. Romero A,
    3. González MT,
    4. González A,
    5. Serrano C,
    6. Castro C,
    7. Pemán J,
    8. Cantón E,
    9. Martín-Mazuelos E
    . 2010. Evaluation of the Etest method for susceptibility testing of Aspergillus spp. and Fusarium spp. to three echinocandins. Med Mycol48:858–861. doi:10.3109/13693781003586943.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. Pfaller MA,
    2. Messer SA,
    3. Mills K,
    4. Bolmström A
    . 2000. In vitro susceptibility testing of filamentous fungi: comparison of Etest and reference microdilution methods for determining itraconazole MICs. J Clin Microbiol38:3359–3361.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. 26.↵
    1. Colosi IA,
    2. Faure O,
    3. Dessaigne B,
    4. Bourdon C,
    5. Lebeau B,
    6. Colosi HA,
    7. Pelloux H
    . 2012. Susceptibility of 100 filamentous fungi: comparison of two diffusion methods, Neo-Sensitabs and E-test, for amphotericin B, caspofungin, itraconazole, voriconazole and posaconazole. Med Mycol50:378–385. doi:10.3109/13693786.2011.616543.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    1. Debourgogne A,
    2. de Hoog S,
    3. Lozniewski A,
    4. Machouart M
    . 2012. Amphotericin B and voriconazole susceptibility profiles for the Fusarium solani species complex: comparison between the E-test and CLSI M38-A2 microdilution methodology. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis31:615–618. doi:10.1007/s10096-011-1323-x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Al-Hatmi AMS,
    2. Hagen F,
    3. Menken SBJ,
    4. Meis JF,
    5. de Hoog GS
    . 2016. Global molecular epidemiology and genetic diversity of Fusarium, a significant emerging human opportunist, 1958–2015. Emerg Microbes Infect5:e33. doi:10.1038/emi.2016.126.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Comparative Evaluation of Etest, EUCAST, and CLSI Methods for Amphotericin B, Voriconazole, and Posaconazole against Clinically Relevant Fusarium Species
Abdullah M. S. Al-Hatmi, Anne-Cécile Normand, Stephane Ranque, Renaud Piarroux, G. Sybren de Hoog, Joseph Meletiadis, Jacques F. Meis
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Dec 2016, 61 (1) e01671-16; DOI: 10.1128/AAC.01671-16

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.
Comparative Evaluation of Etest, EUCAST, and CLSI Methods for Amphotericin B, Voriconazole, and Posaconazole against Clinically Relevant Fusarium Species
(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
Comparative Evaluation of Etest, EUCAST, and CLSI Methods for Amphotericin B, Voriconazole, and Posaconazole against Clinically Relevant Fusarium Species
Abdullah M. S. Al-Hatmi, Anne-Cécile Normand, Stephane Ranque, Renaud Piarroux, G. Sybren de Hoog, Joseph Meletiadis, Jacques F. Meis
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Dec 2016, 61 (1) e01671-16; DOI: 10.1128/AAC.01671-16
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

amphotericin B
antifungal agents
Fusarium
triazoles
voriconazole
Fusarium
antifungal susceptibility
comparison
CLSI
EUCAST
Etest
amphotericin B
posaconazole
voriconazole
TEF1
RPB2

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