Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24277027›Full record

ArticleAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy2014

Multicenter study of anidulafungin and micafungin MIC distributions and epidemiological cutoff values for eight Candida species and the CLSI M27-A3 broth microdilution method.

M A Pfaller, A Espinel-Ingroff, B Bustamante, E Canton, D J Diekema, A Fothergill, J Fuller, G M Gonzalez, J Guarro, C Lass-Flörl and 7 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Journal of clinical microbiology · 2026
    Article
  2. Clinical Outcomes ofJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Synthesis and Development ofAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  6. A 3-year study ofFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2023
    Article
  7. Echinocandins - structure, mechanism of action and use in antifungal therapy.Journal of enzyme inhibition and medicinal chemistry · 2022
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Frontiers in microbiology · 2020
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Fluconazole and Echinocandin Resistance ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2016
    Article
  19. Echinocandin Resistance in Candida.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2015
    Article
  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

17 authors at 16 institutions in 8 countries.

M A PfallerJMI Laboratories, North Liberty, Iowa, USA.
A Espinel-Ingroff
B Bustamante
E Canton
D J Diekema
A Fothergill
J Fuller
G M Gonzalez
J Guarro
C Lass-Flörl
S R Lockhart
E Martin-Mazuelos
J F Meis
L Ostrosky-Zeichner
T Pelaez
G St-Germain
J Turnidge
Canisius-Wilhelmina Ziekenhuis · NLCenters for Disease Control and Prevention · USHospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón · ESHospital Universitario de Valme · ESInnsbruck Medical University · ATInstitut d'Investigació Sanitària Pere Virgili · ESInstitut National de Santé Publique du Québec · CAJMI Laboratories · USThe University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston · USThe University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio · USUniversidad Autónoma de Nuevo León · MXUniversidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia · PEUniversity of Adelaide · AUUniversity of Alberta · CAUniversity of Iowa · USVirginia Commonwealth University Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Since epidemiological cutoff values (ECVs) using CLSI MICs from multiple laboratories are not available for Candida spp. and the echinocandins, we established ECVs for anidulafungin and micafungin on the basis of wild-type (WT) MIC distributions (for organisms in a species-drug combination with no detectable acquired resistance mechanisms) for 8,210 Candida albicans, 3,102 C. glabrata, 3,976 C. parapsilosis, 2,042 C. tropicalis, 617 C. krusei, 258 C. lusitaniae, 234 C. guilliermondii, and 131 C. dubliniensis isolates. CLSI broth microdilution MIC data gathered from 15 different laboratories in Canada, Europe, Mexico, Peru, and the United States were aggregated to statistically define ECVs. ECVs encompassing 97.5% of the statistically modeled population for anidulafungin and micafungin were, respectively, 0.12 and 0.03 μg/ml for C. albicans, 0.12 and 0.03 μg/ml for C. glabrata, 8 and 4 μg/ml for C. parapsilosis, 0.12 and 0.06 μg/ml for C. tropicalis, 0.25 and 0.25 μg/ml for C. krusei, 1 and 0.5 μg/ml for C. lusitaniae, 8 and 2 μg/ml for C. guilliermondii, and 0.12 and 0.12 μg/ml for C. dubliniensis. Previously reported single and multicenter ECVs defined in the present study were quite similar or within 1 2-fold dilution of each other. For a collection of 230 WT isolates (no fks mutations) and 51 isolates with fks mutations, the species-specific ECVs for anidulafungin and micafungin correctly classified 47 (92.2%) and 51 (100%) of the fks mutants, respectively, as non-WT strains. These ECVs may aid in detecting non-WT isolates with reduced susceptibility to anidulafungin and micafungin due to fks mutations.

Indexed as

AnidulafunginAntifungal AgentsCandidaCandidiasisEchinocandinsEuropeFungal ProteinsGene ExpressionHumansLipopeptidesMicafunginMicrobial Sensitivity TestsMutationNorth AmericaSouth AmericaAnidulafunginAntifungal AgentsEchinocandinsFungal ProteinsLipopeptidesMicafungin

Identifiers

PMID24277027
PMCPMC3910887
OpenAlexW2160179793

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.