Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25990252›Full record

ArticleBMC microbiology2015

Susceptibility to echinocandins of Candida spp. strains isolated in Italy assessed by European Committee for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing and Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute broth microdilution methods.

Maria Teresa Montagna, Grazia Lovero, Caterina Coretti, Domenico Martinelli, Osvalda De Giglio, Roberta Iatta, Stella Balbino, Antonio Rosato, Giuseppina Caggiano

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC microbiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Meyerozyma guilliermondii species complex: review of current epidemiology, antifungal resistance, and mechanisms.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2022
    Review
  5. Pharmaceutics · 2021
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
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

9 authors.

Maria Teresa MontagnaDepartment of Biomedical Science and Human Oncology, Hygiene Section, University of Bari "Aldo Moro", Piazza Giulio Cesare 11, Bari, Italy. mariateresa.montagna@uniba.it.
Grazia LoveroDepartment of Biomedical Science and Human Oncology, Hygiene Section, University of Bari "Aldo Moro", Piazza Giulio Cesare 11, Bari, Italy. raz.ro@tiscali.it.
Caterina CorettiDepartment of Biomedical Science and Human Oncology, Hygiene Section, University of Bari "Aldo Moro", Piazza Giulio Cesare 11, Bari, Italy. catiacoretti@yahoo.it.
Domenico MartinelliDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences, Hygiene Section, University of Foggia, Via Gramsci 89-91, 71100, Foggia, Italy. domenico.martinelli@unifg.it.
Osvalda De GiglioDepartment of Biomedical Science and Human Oncology, Hygiene Section, University of Bari "Aldo Moro", Piazza Giulio Cesare 11, Bari, Italy. osvalda.degiglio@uniba.it.
Roberta IattaDepartment of Veterinary Medicine, University of Bari Aldo Moro, Str. Prov. per Casamassima Km 3, Valenzano, Bari, Italy. iroberta@hotmail.com.
Stella BalbinoDepartment of Biomedical Science and Human Oncology, Hygiene Section, University of Bari "Aldo Moro", Piazza Giulio Cesare 11, Bari, Italy. stella.balbino@gmail.com.
Antonio RosatoDepartment of Pharmacy-Drug Sciences, University of Bari Aldo Moro, Campus-Via Orabona, 4, Bari, Italy. antonio.rosato@uniba.it.
Giuseppina CaggianoDepartment of Biomedical Science and Human Oncology, Hygiene Section, University of Bari "Aldo Moro", Piazza Giulio Cesare 11, Bari, Italy. giuseppina.caggiano@uniba.it.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe echinocandins are recommended as first-line therapy for Candida species infections, but drug resistance, especially among Candida glabrata, is becoming more frequent. We investigated the antifungal susceptibility of anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin against 584 isolates of Candida spp. (bloodstream, other sterile sites) collected from patients admitted to an Italian university hospital between 2000 and 2013. The susceptibility was evaluated using the broth microdilution method according to both the European Committee for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST EDef 7.2) and the Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI M27-A3). The echinocandin susceptibilities were assessed on the basis of the species-specific clinical breakpoints proposed by the EUCAST version 6.1 and CLSI M27-S4 documents. The two methods were comparable by assessing essential agreement (EA), categorical agreement (CA), and Spearman's correlation analysis (rho, r).

resultsThe modal minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs; μg ⋅ mL (-1)) values by both methods (EUCAST/CLSI) for anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin for each species were, respectively, as follows: C. albicans, 0.03/0.12, 0.016/0.5, and 0.016/0.008; C. parapsilosis complex, 2/1, 2/2, and 2/1; C. tropicalis, 0.06/0.12, 0.06/0.12, and 0.06/0.12; C. glabrata complex, 0.03/0.25, 0.06/0.12, and 0.03/0.06; C. guilliermondii, 2/1, 2/2, and 2/2; and C. krusei, 0.06/0.12, 0.12/0.5, and 0.06/0.12. The overall resistance rates for EUCAST/CLSI were as follows: anidulafungin, 2.5/0.9%; caspofungin, breakpoint not available/3.8%; micafungin, 2.7/1.5%. Candida glabrata complex was the least susceptible to all three echinocandins, and the percentages of resistant isolates by EUCAST/CLSI were as follows: anidulafungin, 13.5/2.7%; caspofungin, breakpoint not available/16.2%; micafungin, 18.9/13.5%. The overall EA was 93 % for micafungin, 92% for anidulafungin, and 90% for caspofungin. The CA was >90% for all organism-drug combinations with the exception of C. glabrata and anidulafungin (89%). Spearman's rho for EUCAST/CLSI was 0.89 (p < 0.001) for caspofungin, 0.85 (p < 0.001) for anidulafungin, and 0.83 for micafungin (p < 0.001).

conclusionsIndependent of the procedure applied, no alarming resistance to the tested agents was found, although a reduced susceptibility was detected for C. glabrata complex. The EUCAST and CLSI methods produce similar MICs, indicating that using one method or the other should not result in susceptibilities different enough to affect treatment decisions.

Indexed as

AnidulafunginAntifungal AgentsCandidaCandidiasisCaspofunginEchinocandinsHospitals, UniversityHumansItalyLipopeptidesMicafunginMicrobial Sensitivity TestsAnidulafunginAntifungal AgentsCaspofunginEchinocandinsLipopeptidesMicafungin

Identifiers

PMID25990252
PMCPMC4437500

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.