Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Evaluation of two commercial methods for the susceptibility testing of Candida species: Vitek 2® and Sensititre YeastOne®.
Siqueira, Ricardo Andreotti; Doi, Andre Mario; de Petrus Crossara, Paulo Petrus; Koga, Paula Celia Mariko; Marques, Alexandre Gimenes; Nunes, Fabiane Gomes; Pasternak, Jacyr; Martino, Marines Dalla Valle.
Afiliação
  • Siqueira RA; Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, Clinical Laboratory, São Paulo, Brazil.
  • Doi AM; Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, Clinical Laboratory, São Paulo, Brazil. Electronic address: andre.doi@einstein.br.
  • de Petrus Crossara PP; Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, Clinical Laboratory, São Paulo, Brazil.
  • Koga PCM; Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, Clinical Laboratory, São Paulo, Brazil.
  • Marques AG; Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, Clinical Laboratory, São Paulo, Brazil.
  • Nunes FG; Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, Clinical Laboratory, São Paulo, Brazil.
  • Pasternak J; Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, Clinical Laboratory, São Paulo, Brazil.
  • Martino MDV; Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, Clinical Laboratory, São Paulo, Brazil.
Rev Iberoam Micol ; 35(2): 83-87, 2018.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29580699
BACKGROUND: An increased incidence of fungal infections caused by Candida species, especially Candida glabrata and Candida krusei, which are less susceptible to azoles, has been observed. Standardized susceptibility testing is essential for clinical management and for monitoring the epidemiology of resistance. AIMS: We evaluated the performance of two different susceptibility testing commercial methods, Vitek 2® and Sensititre YeastOne®, and compared them with the standard broth microdilution method (CLSI). METHODS: A total of 80 isolates of several Candida species (Candida albicans, Candida parapsilosis complex, Candida tropicalis, C. glabrata and C. krusei) were selected for this study. RESULTS: We analyzed the categorical agreement (CA) between the methods, stratifying the disagreements. The average CA between the methods was 96.3% for Vitek 2® and 84% for Sensititre YeastOne®. No very major errors were observed. Major errors and minor errors were found for all the isolates tested. With the azoles, both Vitek 2® and Sensititre YeastOne® had good and similar performance levels, except for C. tropicalis and C. krusei (Sensititre YeastOne® showed low CA, 56.2%). With the echinocandins, both methods showed good performance for C. albicans, C. parapsilosis and C. tropicalis. However, we observed important discrepancies for C. krusei with caspofungin: Vitek 2® had 100% CA while Sensititre YeastOne® had only 25%. With amphotericin B, both Vitek 2® and Sensititre YeastOne® had good performance with high CA. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the limited isolates tested, we concluded that both methods have good performance and are reliable for antifungal susceptibility testing. However, caspofungin activity against C. krusei and C. glabrata should be interpreted carefully when using Sensititre YeastOne® because we observed a low CA.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Candida / Candidíase / Testes de Sensibilidade Microbiana / Antifúngicos Tipo de estudo: Evaluation_studies Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2018 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Candida / Candidíase / Testes de Sensibilidade Microbiana / Antifúngicos Tipo de estudo: Evaluation_studies Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2018 Tipo de documento: Article