Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27799206›Full record

ArticleAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy2017

Multicenter Study of Method-Dependent Epidemiological Cutoff Values for Detection of Resistance in Candida spp. and Aspergillus spp. to Amphotericin B and Echinocandins for the Etest Agar Diffusion Method.

A Espinel-Ingroff, M Arendrup, E Cantón, S Cordoba, E Dannaoui, J García-Rodríguez, G M Gonzalez, N P Govender, E Martin-Mazuelos, M Lackner and 9 more

Open access · greenAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed
6.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 90 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. eLife · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Diagnosis and Treatment of Invasive Aspergillosis Caused by Non-Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  7. Microorganisms · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Pharmaceutics · 2021
    Review
  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

19 authors at 18 institutions in 9 countries.

A Espinel-IngroffVCU Medical Center, Richmond, Virginia, USA avingrof@vcu.edu.
M ArendrupUnit for Mycology, Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark, and Copenhagen University, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
E CantónGrupo Infección Grave, Instituto Investigación Sanitaria La Fe, Valencia, Spain.
S CordobaInstituto Nacional de Enfermedades Infecciosas Dr. C. G. Malbrán, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
E DannaouiUniversité Paris-Descartes, Faculté de Médecine, APHP, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, Unité de Parasitologie-Mycologie, Service de Microbiologie, Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0002-2817-3830
J García-RodríguezHospital Universitario La Paz, Madrid, Spain.
G M GonzalezUniversidad Autonóma de Nuevo León, Monterrey, Nuevo León, México.
N P GovenderNational Institute for Communicable Diseases, Johannesburg, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0001-7869-9462
E Martin-MazuelosUnidad de Gestion Clinica de Enfermedades Infecciosas y Microbiologia, Hospital Universitario Valme, Seville, Spain.
M LacknerDivision of Hygiene and Medical Microbiology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
C Lass-FlörlDivision of Hygiene and Medical Microbiology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
M J Linares SiciliaFacultad de Medicina, Universidad de Córdoba, H. U. Reina Sofía, Córdoba, Spain.
M A Rodriguez-IglesiasHospital Universitario Puerta del Mar, Cádiz, Spain.
T PelaezServicio de Microbiología, Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias, Asturias, Spain.
R K ShieldsUniversity of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
G Garcia-EffronLaboratorio de Micología y Diagnóstico Molecular-Facultad de Bioquímica y Ciencias Biológicas-Universidad Nacional del Litoral, Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Tecnológicas (CONICET), CCT, Santa Fe, Argentina.
J GuineaServicio de Microbiología Clínica y Enfermedades Infecciosas-VIH, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañon, and Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-7901-8355
M SanguinettiInstitute of Microbiology and Institute of Hygiene, Universita Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
J TurnidgeUniversity of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.
Innsbruck Medical University · ATAdministración Nacional de Laboratorios e Institutos de Salud · ARConsejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas · ARHospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón · ESHospital Universitario Central de Asturias · ESHospital Universitario de Valme · ESHospital Universitario La Paz · ESHospital Universitario Puerta del Mar · ESInstituto de Investigación Sanitaria La Fe · ESNational Institute for Communicable DiseasesStatens Serum Institut · DKThe University of Adelaide · AUUniversidad Autónoma de Nuevo León · MXUniversità Cattolica del Sacro Cuore · ITUniversité Paris Cité · FRUniversity of Córdoba · ESUniversity of Pittsburgh Medical Center · USVirginia Commonwealth University Medical Center · US

Funding

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 AI114883
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Method-dependent Etest epidemiological cutoff values (ECVs) are not available for susceptibility testing of either Candida or Aspergillus species with amphotericin B or echinocandins. In addition, reference caspofungin MICs for Candida spp. are unreliable. Candida and Aspergillus species wild-type (WT) Etest MIC distributions (microorganisms in a species-drug combination with no detectable phenotypic resistance) were established for 4,341 Candida albicans, 113 C. dubliniensis, 1,683 C. glabrata species complex (SC), 709 C. krusei, 767 C. parapsilosis SC, 796 C. tropicalis, 1,637 Aspergillus fumigatus SC, 238 A. flavus SC, 321 A. niger SC, and 247 A. terreus SC isolates. Etest MICs from 15 laboratories (in Argentina, Europe, Mexico, South Africa, and the United States) were pooled to establish Etest ECVs. Anidulafungin, caspofungin, micafungin, and amphotericin B ECVs (in micrograms per milliliter) encompassing ≥97.5% of the statistically modeled population were 0.016, 0.5, 0.03, and 1 for C. albicans; 0.03, 1, 0.03, and 2 for C. glabrata SC; 0.06, 1, 0.25, and 4 for C. krusei; 8, 4, 2, and 2 for C. parapsilosis SC; and 0.03, 1, 0.12, and 2 for C. tropicalis The amphotericin B ECV was 0.25 μg/ml for C. dubliniensis and 2, 8, 2, and 16 μg/ml for the complexes of A. fumigatus, A. flavus, A. niger, and A. terreus, respectively. While anidulafungin Etest ECVs classified 92% of the Candida fks mutants evaluated as non-WT, the performance was lower for caspofungin (75%) and micafungin (84%) cutoffs. Finally, although anidulafungin (as an echinocandin surrogate susceptibility marker) and amphotericin B ECVs should identify Candida and Aspergillus isolates with reduced susceptibility to these agents using the Etest, these ECVs will not categorize a fungal isolate as susceptible or resistant, as breakpoints do.

Indexed as

Drug Resistance, FungalAmphotericin BAntifungal AgentsAspergillusCandidaDisk Diffusion Antimicrobial TestsEchinocandinsEuropeLatin AmericaSouth AfricaUnited StatesAmphotericin BAntifungal AgentsEchinocandinsamphotericin B resistanceantifungal resistanceechinocandin resistanceECVsEtest ECVsEtest MICs AspergillusEtest MICs Candidanon-WTsusceptibility markerWT isolates

Identifiers

PMID27799206
PMCPMC5192158
OpenAlexW2542964698

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.