ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2012
Novel method for evaluating in vitro activity of anidulafungin in combination with amphotericin B or azoles.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Non-ergosterol lipid remodeling governs amphotericin B susceptibility via TOR-calcineurin signaling inCell surface (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2026Article
- In Vitro Interaction and Killing-Kinetics of Amphotericin B Combined with Anidulafungin or Caspofungin againstPharmaceutics · 2021Article
- A Flow Cytometric and Computational Approaches to Carbapenems Affinity to the Different Types of Carbapenemases.Frontiers in microbiology · 2016Article
- Unveiling the Synergistic Interaction Between Liposomal Amphotericin B and Colistin.Frontiers in microbiology · 2016Article
- New Insights Regarding Yeast Survival following Exposure to Liposomal Amphotericin B.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A combination of drugs possessing different targets has been used as salvage therapy, although without scientific support. In vitro studies validating such combinations are scarce, and the methodology is very laborious and time-consuming. This study proposes a flow cytometric (FC) protocol as an alternative to evaluate the effect of the combination of anidulafungin (AND) with amphotericin B (AMB) and azoles (fluconazole and voriconazole), tested upon 39 and 36 Candida strains, respectively. The concentration assayed in the combination was 0.5× MIC of each drug. The membrane potential marker DiBAC(4)(3) [Bis-(1,3-dibutylbarbituric acid) trimethine oxonol] was used for AND-AMB, and the metabolic marker FUN-1 was used for AND-azoles. Drug interaction was determined by calculating a staining index (SI): the sum of the percentage of depolarized cells (DC) after treatment with drug combinations divided by the DC of the drug alone, and the sum of the mean intensity of fluorescence (MIF) displayed by cells treated with drug combinations divided by the MIF of the drug alone for FUN-1. An SI of <1 means antagonism, an SI between 1 and 4 means no interaction, and an SI of >4 means synergism. The combination of AND and AMB by FC and checkerboard was synergistic for 46 and 43% of isolates and antagonistic for 5 and 8%, respectively. For the combination of AND and azoles, it was synergistic for 36% and antagonistic for 3% by FC and synergistic for 44% and antagonistic for 3% by checkerboard. When the FC method was compared to the gold standard checkerboard method, the agreement was 0.91 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] of 0.88 to 0.94), sensitivity was 0.88 (95% CI of 0.73 to 0.95), and specificity was 0.95 (95% CI of 0.84 to 1). Thus, FC is a rapid and reliable method (<2 h) to assess the effect of antifungal combinations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.