Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16614256›Full record

ReviewClinical microbiology reviews2006

Interpretive breakpoints for fluconazole and Candida revisited: a blueprint for the future of antifungal susceptibility testing.

M A Pfaller, D J Diekema, D J Sheehan

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical microbiology reviews, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 95 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
95citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

95 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Candidiasis: 2016 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2016
    Guideline
  2. Guideline
  3. Clinical practice guidelines for the management of candidiasis: 2009 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2009
    Guideline
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Antibiofilm Activity ofEvidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2022
    Article

35 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

M A PfallerDepartment of Pathology, Medical Microbiology Division, C606 GH, University of Iowa College of Medicine, Iowa City, 52242, USA. michael-pfaller@uiowa.edu
D J Diekema
D J Sheehan

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Developing interpretive breakpoints for any given organism-drug combination requires integration of the MIC distribution, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic parameters, and the relationship between in vitro activity and outcome from both in vivo and clinical studies. Previously, the Subcommittee for Antifungal Testing of the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI [formerly National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards]) proposed MIC interpretive breakpoints for fluconazole and Candida spp. These breakpoints were considered to be somewhat weak, because the clinical data supporting them came largely from mucosal infections and there were very few infections involving strains with elevated fluconazole MICs. We readdress the issue of fluconazole breakpoints for Candida by using published clinical and microbiologic data to provide further validation of the breakpoints proposed by the CLSI in 1997. We also address interpretive breakpoints for agar disk diffusion testing of fluconazole. The MIC distribution for fluconazole was determined with a collection of 13,338 clinical isolates. The overall MIC at which 90% of the isolates were inhibited was 8 microg/ml: 91% were susceptible (S) at a MIC of <or=8 microg/ml and 3% were resistant (R) (MIC >or= 64 microg/ml). Similar results were obtained for 2,190 isolates from randomized clinical trials. Analysis of available data for 1,295 patient-episode-isolate events (692 represented mucosal infections and 603 represented invasive infections) from 12 published clinical studies demonstrated an overall success rate of 77%, including 85% for those episodes in which the fluconazole MIC was <or=8 microg/ml, 67% for those episodes in which the MIC was 16 to 32 microg/ml, and 42% for those episodes with resistant (MIC >or= 64 microg/ml) isolates. Pharmacodynamic analysis demonstrated a strong relationship between MIC, fluconazole dose, and outcome. A dose/MIC ratio of approximately 25 was supportive of the following susceptibility breakpoints for fluconazole and Candida spp.: S, MIC <or= 8 microg/ml; susceptible-dose dependent (SDD), MIC = 16 to 32 microg/ml; R, MIC >or= 64 microg/ml. The corresponding disk test breakpoints are as follows: S, >or=19 mm; SDD, 15 to 18 mm; R, <or=14 mm.

Indexed as

Antifungal AgentsCandidaCandidiasisClinical Trials as TopicDose-Response Relationship, DrugDrug Resistance, FungalFluconazoleHumansMicrobial Sensitivity TestsTreatment OutcomeAntifungal AgentsFluconazole

Identifiers

PMID16614256
PMCPMC1471993

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.