Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26282428›Full record

ArticleAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy2015

Multicenter study of epidemiological cutoff values and detection of resistance in Candida spp. to anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin using the Sensititre YeastOne colorimetric method.

A Espinel-Ingroff, M Alvarez-Fernandez, E Cantón, P L Carver, S C-A Chen, G Eschenauer, D L Getsinger, G M Gonzalez, N P Govender, A Grancini and 34 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing 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

36 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Clinical Characteristics and Mortality Risk Factors ofAnnals of laboratory medicine · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Antifungal Activity ofMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Resistance to Echinocandins Complicates a Case ofJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Detection of Echinocandin-ResistantAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2019
    Article
  20. Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2019
    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

44 authors.

A Espinel-IngroffVCU Medical Center, Richmond, Virginia, USA avingrof@vcu.edu.
M Alvarez-FernandezServicio de Microbiologia, Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias, Oviedo, Spain.
E CantónUnidad de Microbiología del Centro de Investigación, Valencia, Spain.
P L CarverDepartment of Clinical, Social and Administrative Sciences, University of Michigan College of Pharmacy, and University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
S C-A ChenCentre for Infectious Diseases and Microbiology Laboratory Services, Institute for Clinical Pathology and Medical Research, Westmead Hospital, New South Wales, Australia.
G EschenauerDepartment of Clinical, Social and Administrative Sciences, University of Michigan College of Pharmacy, and University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
D L GetsingerStanford University Medical Center, Hospital and Clinics, Palo Alto, California, USA.
G M GonzalezUniversidad Autonóma de Nuevo León, Monterrey, Nuevo León, Mexico.
N P GovenderNational Institute for Communicable Diseases and University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7869-9462
A GranciniMicrobiology Lab, Fondazione IRCCS Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy.
K E HansonDepartment of Pathology, The University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
S E KiddNational Mycology Reference Centre, SA Pathology, Adelaide, Australia.
K KlinkerDepartment of Pharmacy, UF Health Shands Hospital, Gainesville, Florida, USA.
C J KubinDepartment of Pharmacy, New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York, USA.
J V KusPublic Health Ontario, Toronto, Canada.
S R LockhartMycotic Diseases Branch, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
J MeletiadisUniversity of Athens, Athens, Greece.
A J MorrisClinical Microbiology Laboratory, Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand.
T PelaezHospital General Universitario Gregorio Maraňón, Facultad de Medicina-Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain.
G QuindósUFI 11/25, Universidad del País Vasco-Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea, Bilbao, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0438-2248
M Rodriguez-IglesiasHospital Universitario Puerta del Mar, Cádiz, Spain.
F Sánchez-ReusServei de Microbiologia Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain.
S ShohamDepartment of Medicine, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
N L WengenackDivision of Clinical Microbiology, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
N Borrell SoléHospital Universitario Son Dureta, Palma de Mallorca, Spain.
J EcheverriaHospital Donostia, San Sebastián, Spain.
J EsperalbaHospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro, Majadahonda, Spain.
E Gómez-G de la PedrosaHospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal, Madrid, Spain.
I García GarcíaHospital Universitario de Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain.
M J LinaresFacultad de Medicina, Universidad de Córdoba, Hospital General Universitario Reina Sofía, Córdoba, Spain.
F MarcoDepartment of Microbiology, ISGlobal, Barcelona Centre for International Health Research, Hospital Clínic-Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
P MerinoHospital Clínico Universitario de San Carlos, Madrid, Spain.
J PemánHospital Universitario La Fe, Valencia, Spain.
L Pérez Del MolinoComplejo Hospitalario Universitario de Santiago, Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
E Roselló MayansHospital Universitario Valle Hebrón, Barcelona, Spain.
C Rubio CalvoHospital Clínico Universitario Lozano Blesa, Zaragoza, Spain.
M Ruiz Pérez de PipaonHospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío, Seville, Spain.
G YagüeHospital Universitario Virgen De La Arrixaca, Murcia, Spain.
G Garcia-EffronMycology and Molecular Diagnosis Laboratory, Universidad Nacional del Litoral-CONICET, Santa Fe, Argentina.
J GuineaHospital General Universitario Gregorio Maraňón, Facultad de Medicina-Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7901-8355
D S PerlinPublic Health Research Institute, New Jersey Medical School-Rutgers, Newark, New Jersey, USA.
M SanguinettiInstitute of Microbiology and Institute of Hygiene d'Universita Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
R ShieldsUniversity of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
J TurnidgeUniversity of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.

Funding

Critical Factors Influencing Echinocandin Resistance in CandidaglabrataR01AI109025 · NIAID · RBHS-NEW JERSEY MEDICAL SCHOOL · PI PERLIN, DAVID S · 2014 to 2025
$9.8M
Caspofungin pharmacokinetics-pharmacodynamics during intra-adbominal candidiasisK08AI114883 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI SHIELDS, RYAN K · 2015 to 2019
$858k
NIAID NIH HHS K08 AI114883NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI109025
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Neither breakpoints (BPs) nor epidemiological cutoff values (ECVs) have been established for Candida spp. with anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin when using the Sensititre YeastOne (SYO) broth dilution colorimetric method. In addition, reference caspofungin MICs have so far proven to be unreliable. Candida species wild-type (WT) MIC distributions (for microorganisms in a species/drug combination with no detectable phenotypic resistance) were established for 6,007 Candida albicans, 186 C. dubliniensis, 3,188 C. glabrata complex, 119 C. guilliermondii, 493 C. krusei, 205 C. lusitaniae, 3,136 C. parapsilosis complex, and 1,016 C. tropicalis isolates. SYO MIC data gathered from 38 laboratories in Australia, Canada, Europe, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa, and the United States were pooled to statistically define SYO ECVs. ECVs for anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin encompassing ≥97.5% of the statistically modeled population were, respectively, 0.12, 0.25, and 0.06 μg/ml for C. albicans, 0.12, 0.25, and 0.03 μg/ml for C. glabrata complex, 4, 2, and 4 μg/ml for C. parapsilosis complex, 0.5, 0.25, and 0.06 μg/ml for C. tropicalis, 0.25, 1, and 0.25 μg/ml for C. krusei, 0.25, 1, and 0.12 μg/ml for C. lusitaniae, 4, 2, and 2 μg/ml for C. guilliermondii, and 0.25, 0.25, and 0.12 μg/ml for C. dubliniensis. Species-specific SYO ECVs for anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin correctly classified 72 (88.9%), 74 (91.4%), 76 (93.8%), respectively, of 81 Candida isolates with identified fks mutations. SYO ECVs may aid in detecting non-WT isolates with reduced susceptibility to anidulafungin, micafungin, and especially caspofungin, since testing the susceptibilities of Candida spp. to caspofungin by reference methodologies is not recommended.

Indexed as

AnidulafunginAntifungal AgentsCandidaCaspofunginEchinocandinsLipopeptidesMicafunginMicrobial Sensitivity TestsMutationAnidulafunginAntifungal AgentsCaspofunginEchinocandinsLipopeptidesMicafungin

Identifiers

PMID26282428
PMCPMC4604361

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.