Comparison of three methods for in vitro susceptibility testing of Candida species with flucytosine.

Optimal methods for susceptibility testing of Candida spp. with flucytosine have not been determined. Breakpoints were recommended in 1984, but never validated. In this study, we compared the 1984 recommended macrodilution broth method (using an 80% endpoint) with a modification of the more recent NCCLS-recommended microdilution broth method with three endpoints-spectrophotometric 50% and 80% and a no growth endpoint determined by eye. NCCLS and British Society for Medical Mycology (BSMM) breakpoints were also compared. One hundred and fifty isolates comprised of Candida albicans, Candida tropicalis, Candida krusei, Candida glabrata, Candida parapsilosis and Candida lusitaniae were tested. Reproducibility was excellent. For C. albicans (n = 65), the correlation between tests was excellent (>75%), with few major discrepancies (<5%). For C. tropicalis (n = 27), correlation was good (59%), but there were a small number of major discrepancies (up to 11%, depending on breakpoint used). Results by the broth macrodilution method were generally higher than both microdilution methods for C. glabrata (n = 16; correlation of 18.8%), but only one major discrepancy was seen. Ten of the 11 C. parapsilosis isolates tested were susceptible by all methods, regardless of breakpoint chosen, with a correlation of 18.2%, but no major discrepancies were seen. A correlation between all methods (50%) was seen with C. lusitaniae (n = 10), with many isolates resistant or intermediate. In contrast, correlation between methods for C. krusei was poor (<5%); NCCLS microtitre modification produced results that were classified as intermediate or resistant, regardless of the breakpoint used. The methodology for susceptibility testing C. albicans is robust. Additional work to optimize susceptibility testing with flucytosine is necessary for non-albicans Candida species, especially C. krusei.

[1]  E. Mellado,et al.  Flucytosine Primary Resistance in Candida Species and Cryptococcus neoformans , 2001, European Journal of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases.

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

[3]  H. Guchelaar,et al.  Flucytosine: a review of its pharmacology, clinical indications, pharmacokinetics, toxicity and drug interactions. , 2000, The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy.

[4]  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.

[5]  M. Ghannoum,et al.  Multicenter Comparison of the Sensititre YeastOne Colorimetric Antifungal Panel with the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards M27-A Reference Method for Testing Clinical Isolates of Common and Emerging Candidaspp., Cryptococcus spp., and Other Yeasts and Yeast-Like Organisms , 1999, Journal of Clinical Microbiology.

[6]  R. Pinner,et al.  The epidemiological features of invasive mycotic infections in the San Francisco Bay area, 1992-1993: results of population-based laboratory active surveillance. , 1998, Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

[7]  T. Rogers,et al.  Multi-centre evaluation of the Etest method for antifungal drug susceptibility testing of Candida spp. and Cryptococcus neoformans. BSAC Working Party on Antifungal Chemotherapy. , 1998, The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy.

[8]  Elizabeth M. Johnson,et al.  Comparative Evaluation of FUNGITEST and Broth Microdilution Methods for Antifungal Drug Susceptibility Testing of Candida Species and Cryptococcus neoformans , 1998, Journal of Clinical Microbiology.

[9]  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.

[10]  J. Martínez-Suárez,et al.  Comparison of a spectrophotometric microdilution method with RPMI-2% glucose with the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards reference macrodilution method M27-P for in vitro susceptibility testing of amphotericin B, flucytosine, and fluconazole against Candida albicans , 1996, Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy.

[11]  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.

[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]  E. Anaissie,et al.  Correlation between in vitro and in vivo activity of antifungal agents against Candida species. , 1994, The Journal of infectious diseases.

[14]  J. Rex,et al.  Selection of candidate quality control isolates and tentative quality control ranges for in vitro susceptibility testing of yeast isolates by National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards proposed standard methods , 1994, Journal of clinical microbiology.

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

[16]  A. Polak,et al.  Susceptibility of yeast isolates from defined German patient groups to 5‐fluorocytosine * , 1992, Mycoses.

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

[18]  M. Radetsky,et al.  Microtiter broth dilution method for yeast susceptibility testing with validation by clinical outcome , 1986, Journal of clinical microbiology.

[19]  J. Galgiani,et al.  Susceptibility of Candida albicans to flucytosine when tested in different formulations of yeast nitrogen base broth. , 1986, Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease.

[20]  R. Hay,et al.  Laboratory methods for flucytosine (5-fluorocytosine) , 1984 .

[21]  D. Stevens,et al.  Correlation of in vitro susceptibility test results with in vivo response: flucytosine therapy in a systemic candidiasis model. , 1983, The Journal of infectious diseases.

[22]  E. Bruck,et al.  National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. , 1980, Pediatrics.