Modifications of antifungal sensibility testing as suggested by CLSI document M27-A4: proposal for using different culture medium and buffer.

A common strategy in antifungal susceptibility testing is the utilization of the standardized protocol based on the microbroth dilution assay approach as described by the Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) (M27-A4). One major problem for laboratories in resource-limited countries with this protocol arises from the use of expensive culture media like RPMI-1640 and 3-N-morpholinopropanesulfonic acid (MOPS) buffer. One approach of circumventing this problem in cases of economic need is the evaluation of alternative culture media and buffers. The overall goal of this work was to investigate the influence of modifications in the protocol M27-A4 on diagnostic reliability. We performed univariate analyses evaluating (1) 2 different culture media (YNB and modified SAB); (2) three different buffers (sodium bicarbonate, Tris-HCL, and phosphate), as well as the influence of inoculum concentration (102, 103, 104, 105 cells/mL), the influence of incubation time, and the influence of the assessment mode (visual, biological dye, and spectrophotometer). Our results suggested that (1) RPMI-1640 may be substituted by modified SAB and (2) MOPS buffer may be substituted by Tris-HCl buffer for defined analyses. By comparing the CLSI protocol and the alternative protocol proposed in the present study (modified SAB and Tris-HCl buffer) for the assessment of fluconazole susceptibility of eighteen yeasts (clinical isolates), similar results with both methodologies were recorded. We feel that this study should stimulate a discussion on the feasibility and evolution of the M27-A4 protocol in order to include pragmatic alternatives for resource-limited settings.

[1]  Elizabeth M. Johnson Issues in antifungal susceptibility testing. , 2008, The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy.

[2]  S. Córdoba,et al.  Evaluation of the in vitro activity of amphotericin B by time-kill curve methodology against large and small capsulate C. neoformans isolates. , 2011, Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease.

[3]  J. Rex,et al.  Lot-to-lot variability of antibiotic medium 3 used for testing susceptibility of Candida isolates to amphotericin B , 1997, Journal of clinical microbiology.

[4]  E. Anaissie,et al.  Detection of amphotericin B-resistant Candida isolates in a broth-based system , 1995, Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy.

[5]  Ó. Zaragoza Basic principles of the virulence of Cryptococcus , 2019, Virulence.

[6]  M. Cuenca‐Estrella,et al.  Influence of Shaking on Antifungal Susceptibility Testing of Cryptococcus neoformans: a Comparison of the NCCLS Standard M27A Medium, Buffered Yeast Nitrogen Base, and RPMI–2% Glucose , 2000, Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy.

[7]  M. Pfaller,et al.  Multicenter evaluation of four methods of yeast inoculum preparation , 1988, Journal of clinical microbiology.

[8]  C. Lass‐Flörl,et al.  Minimal Inhibitory Concentration (MIC)-Phenomena in Candida albicans and Their Impact on the Diagnosis of Antifungal Resistance , 2019, Journal of fungi.

[9]  J. Galgiani,et al.  Collaborative investigation of variables in susceptibility testing of yeasts , 1990, Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy.

[10]  B. Fries,et al.  Candidiasis and Mechanisms of Antifungal Resistance , 2020, Antibiotics.

[11]  D. Boulware,et al.  Increased Antifungal Drug Resistance in Clinical Isolates of Cryptococcus neoformans in Uganda , 2015, Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy.

[12]  H. Badali,et al.  Antifungal Resistance Testing and Implications for Management , 2019, Current Fungal Infection Reports.

[13]  H. Kamata,et al.  Antifungal Susceptibility of Clinical Isolates and Artificially Produced Multi-azole-resistant Strains of Cryptococcus neoformans (formerly: Cryptococcus grubii) to Ravuconazole. , 2020, Medical mycology journal.

[14]  E. Mellado,et al.  Detection of Resistance to Amphotericin B inCandida Isolates by Using Iso-Sensitest Broth , 2001, Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy.

[15]  E. Sionov,et al.  Heteroresistance to Fluconazole in Cryptococcus neoformans Is Intrinsic and Associated with Virulence , 2009, Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy.

[16]  I. Polacheck,et al.  Heteroresistance to Fluconazole and Voriconazole inCryptococcus neoformans , 1999, Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy.

[17]  J. Rex,et al.  Quality control guidelines for National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards recommended broth macrodilution testing of amphotericin B, fluconazole, and flucytosine , 1995, Journal of clinical microbiology.

[18]  R. Standish,et al.  First Cryo-Scanning Electron Microscopy Images and X-Ray Microanalyses of Mucoromycotinian Fine Root Endophytes in Vascular Plants , 2020, Frontiers in Microbiology.

[19]  T. Kirn,et al.  Point-Counterpoint: Differences between the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing and Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute Recommendations for Reporting Antimicrobial Susceptibility Results , 2019, Journal of Clinical Microbiology.

[20]  A. Fothergill,et al.  Update from the Laboratory: Clinical Identification and Susceptibility Testing of Fungi and Trends in Antifungal Resistance. , 2016, Infectious disease clinics of North America.

[21]  B. Clotet Once-daily dosing of nevirapine in HAART. , 2007, The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy.

[22]  M. Ghannoum,et al.  Quality Control Limits for Broth Microdilution Susceptibility Tests of Ten Antifungal Agents , 2000, Journal of Clinical Microbiology.

[23]  M. Cuenca‐Estrella,et al.  Process Analysis of Variables for Standardization of Antifungal Susceptibility Testing of Nonfermentative Yeasts , 2011, Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy.

[24]  J. Galgiani,et al.  Collaborative comparison of broth macrodilution and microdilution antifungal susceptibility tests , 1992, Journal of clinical microbiology.

[25]  M. Spitzer,et al.  Combinatorial strategies for combating invasive fungal infections , 2017, Virulence.

[26]  S. Karve,et al.  The impact of initial antibiotic treatment failure: real-world insights in patients with complicated, health care-associated intra-abdominal infection , 2019, Infection and drug resistance.

[27]  I. Brukner,et al.  A Fundamental Change in Antibiotic Susceptibility Testing Would Better Prevent Therapeutic Failure: From Individual to Population-Based Analysis , 2020, Frontiers in Microbiology.

[28]  Impact of Rapid Molecular Diagnostic Testing of Respiratory Viruses on Outcomes of Adults Hospitalized with Respiratory Illness: a Multicenter Quasi-experimental Study , 2018, Journal of Clinical Microbiology.

[29]  M. Ghannoum,et al.  Susceptibility testing of Cryptococcus neoformans: a microdilution technique , 1992, Journal of clinical microbiology.

[30]  H. Frickmann,et al.  Factors influencing susceptibility testing of antifungal drugs: a critical review of document M27-A4 from the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) , 2020, Brazilian Journal of Microbiology.

[31]  J. Galgiani,et al.  Multicenter evaluation of a broth macrodilution antifungal susceptibility test for yeasts , 1993, Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy.

[32]  D. Perlin,et al.  Improved Detection of Candida sp. fks Hot Spot Mutants by Using the Method of the CLSI M27-A3 Document with the Addition of Bovine Serum Albumin , 2011, Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy.

[33]  M. Arendrup,et al.  Echinocandin Susceptibility Testing of Candida spp. Using EUCAST EDef 7.1 and CLSI M27-A3 Standard Procedures: Analysis of the Influence of Bovine Serum Albumin Supplementation, Storage Time, and Drug Lots , 2011, Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy.

[34]  M. Pfaller,et al.  Comparative evaluation of alternative methods for broth dilution susceptibility testing of fluconazole against Candida albicans , 1994, Journal of clinical microbiology.

[35]  J. Martínez-Suárez,et al.  Improved medium for fluconazole susceptibility testing of Candida albicans , 1994, Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy.

[36]  R. Vitale,et al.  Influence of capsule size on the in vitro activity of antifungal agents against clinical Cryptococcus neoformans var. grubii strains. , 2012, Journal of medical microbiology.

[37]  J. Galgiani,et al.  pH and other effects on the antifungal activity of cilofungin (LY121019) , 1989, Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy.

[38]  J. Berman,et al.  Heteroresistance to Fluconazole Is a Continuously Distributed Phenotype among Candida glabrata Clinical Strains Associated with In Vivo Persistence , 2016, mBio.

[39]  J. Perfect,et al.  Combination Therapy for Invasive Fungal Infections , 2020, Current Fungal Infection Reports.

[40]  M. Rinaldi,et al.  Comparative study of broth macrodilution and microdilution techniques for in vitro antifungal susceptibility testing of yeasts by using the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards' proposed standard , 1994, Journal of clinical microbiology.

[41]  M. Valero,et al.  Effect of pH and buffer system on the in-vitro activity of five antifungals against yeasts. , 1997, The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy.