Multi-centre evaluation of the Etest method for antifungal drug susceptibility testing of Candida spp. and Cryptococcus neoformans. BSAC Working Party on Antifungal Chemotherapy.

Ten laboratories tested 18 isolates of Candida spp. and two of Cryptococcus neoformans against amphotericin B, flucytosine, fluconazole and itraconazole on two occasions by the Etest method. Two individuals read each set of results. Of the 18 isolates of Candida spp., five were duplicated, but the participants were not told this. In 40 of the 60 drug-organism combinations studied, at least 80% of the Etest MICs fell within a five-concentration range corresponding to the modal MIC +/- 1 log2 dilution. In five combinations, >50% of the Etest MICs fell outside this five-concentration range. In 17 (85%) of the 20 drug-organism combinations tested in duplicate, at least 80% of the paired Etest results fell within two concentrations of each other (corresponding to one log2 dilution). Overall, 88.5% of the paired Etest results for amphotericin B agreed to within two concentrations, as did 94% of results for flucytosine, 92% for fluconazole and 79% for itraconazole. The broth microdilution MICs of the four antifungal agents for the 15 isolates were measured on five occasions in the Mycology Reference Laboratory, Bristol. In each case, the results fell within a three log2 concentration range. In 24 (40%) of the 60 drug-organism combinations tested, at least 80% of the Etest results fell within the broth microdilution test MIC range, but 27 (45%) showed <50% exact agreement. In 33 (73%) of 45 drug-organism combinations involving flucytosine, fluconazole or itraconazole, at least 80% of the Etest results fell within the same class (susceptible, resistant, or susceptible dependent upon dose) as the broth microdilution results. With fluconazole, the Etest method misclassified three susceptible isolates of Candida spp. as resistant in 1.5-15% of tests. With itraconazole, the Etest misclassified seven susceptible isolates of Candida spp. as resistant in 5-62.5% of tests. The Etest also misclassified both C. neoformans isolates as resistant to flucytosine, fluconazole and itraconazole in 7.5-65% of tests. Our results suggest that the Etest is suitable for routine use with Candida spp. and amphotericin B or flucytosine. It is less reliable for the azoles, and isolates that appear to demonstrate acquired resistance should be retested with well-established reference methods.

[1]  M. Ghannoum,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. Subcommittee on Antifungal Susceptibility Testing of the National Committee for Clinical Labora , 1997, Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

[2]  J. Martínez-Suárez,et al.  Fluconazole and amphotericin B antifungal susceptibility testing by National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards broth macrodilution method compared with E-test and semiautomated broth microdilution test , 1996, Journal of clinical microbiology.

[3]  M. Trautmann,et al.  Comparative evaluation of three antifungal susceptibility test methods for Candida albicans isolates and correlation with response to fluconazole therapy , 1996, Journal of clinical microbiology.

[4]  A. Bolmström,et al.  Multisite reproducibility of the Etest MIC method for antifungal susceptibility testing of yeast isolates , 1996, Journal of clinical microbiology.

[5]  M. Pfaller,et al.  Interlaboratory evaluation of Etest method for testing antifungal susceptibilities of pathogenic yeasts to five antifungal agents by using Casitone agar and solidified RPMI 1640 medium with 2% glucose , 1996, Journal of clinical microbiology.

[6]  G. Gilbert,et al.  Antifungal susceptibility testing using the E test: comparison with the broth macrodilution technique. , 1996, The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy.

[7]  J. Rex,et al.  Comparison of Etest and National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards broth macrodilution method for antifungal susceptibility testing: enhanced ability to detect amphotericin B-resistant Candida isolates , 1995, Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy.

[8]  M. Rinaldi,et al.  Evaluation of the E test system versus a microtitre broth method for antifungal susceptibility testing of yeasts against fluconazole and itraconazole. , 1995, Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy.

[9]  J. Martínez-Suárez,et al.  Correlation of in-vitro susceptibility test results with clinical response: a study of azole therapy in AIDS patients. , 1995, The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy.

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

[11]  M. Rinaldi,et al.  Comparison of Etest and National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards broth macrodilution method for azole antifungal susceptibility testing , 1995, Journal of clinical microbiology.

[12]  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.

[13]  M. Pfaller,et al.  Comparison of broth macrodilution, broth microdilution, and E test antifungal susceptibility tests for fluconazole , 1994, Journal of clinical microbiology.

[14]  A. Espinel-Ingroff Etest for antifungal susceptibility testing of yeasts. , 1994, Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease.

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

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

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

[18]  A. Espinel-Ingroff,et al.  Comparison study of broth macrodilution and microdilution antifungal susceptibility tests , 1991, Journal of clinical microbiology.