Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24153129›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2014

Use of micafungin as a surrogate marker to predict susceptibility and resistance to caspofungin among 3,764 clinical isolates of Candida by use of CLSI methods and interpretive criteria.

Michael A Pfaller, Shawn A Messer, Daniel J Diekema, Ronald N Jones, Mariana Castanheira

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
–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

29 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. ManagingAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Journal of clinical microbiology · 2024
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Microorganisms · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Can We Improve Antifungal Susceptibility Testing?Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2021
    Review
  12. Antifungal Susceptibility Testing: Current Approaches.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2020
    Review
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Susceptibility Testing of Fungi to Antifungal Drugs.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2018
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

5 authors.

Michael A PfallerJMI Laboratories, North Liberty, Iowa, USA.
Shawn A Messer
Daniel J Diekema
Ronald N Jones
Mariana Castanheira

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Due to unacceptably high interlaboratory variation in caspofungin MIC values, we evaluated the use of micafungin as a surrogate marker to predict the susceptibility of Candida spp. to caspofungin using reference methods and species-specific interpretive criteria. The MIC results for 3,764 strains of Candida (eight species), including 73 strains with fks mutations, were used. Caspofungin MIC values and species-specific interpretive criteria were compared with those of micafungin to determine the percent categorical agreement (%CA) and very major error (VME), major error (ME), and minor error rates as well as their ability to detect fks mutant strains of Candida albicans (11 mutants), Candida tropicalis (4 mutants), Candida krusei (3 mutants), and Candida glabrata (55 mutants). Overall, the %CA was 98.8% (0.2% VMEs and MEs, 0.8% minor errors) using micafungin as the surrogate marker. Among the 60 isolates of C. albicans (9 isolates), C. tropicalis (5 isolates), C. krusei (2 isolates), and C. glabrata (44 isolates) that were nonsusceptible (either intermediate or resistant) to both caspofungin and micafungin, 54 (90.0%) contained a mutation in fks1 or fks2. An additional 10 C. glabrata mutants, two C. albicans mutants, and one mutant each of C. tropicalis and C. krusei were classified as susceptible to both antifungal agents. Using the epidemiological cutoff values (ECVs) of 0.12 μg/ml for caspofungin and 0.03 μg/ml for micafungin to differentiate wild-type (WT) from non-WT strains of C. glabrata, 80% of the C. glabrata mutants were non-WT for both agents (96% concordance). Micafungin may serve as an acceptable surrogate marker for the prediction of susceptibility and resistance of Candida to caspofungin.

Indexed as

Antifungal AgentsBiomarkersCandidaCaspofunginDrug Resistance, FungalEchinocandinsFungal ProteinsHumansLipopeptidesMicafunginMicrobial Sensitivity TestsMutationAntifungal AgentsBiomarkersCaspofunginEchinocandinsFungal ProteinsLipopeptidesMicafungin

Identifiers

PMID24153129
PMCPMC3911432

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.