Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31106352›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy2019

Development and multicentre validation of an agar-based screening method for echinocandin susceptibility testing of Aspergillus species.

Joseph Meletiadis, Maria Siopi, Lamprini Kanioura, Karin Meinike Jørgensen, David S Perlin, Johan W Mouton, Maiken Cavling Arendrup

Abstract readMulticenter StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Prevalence ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. A Practical Guide to Antifungal Susceptibility Testing.Journal of the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society · 2023
    Article
  6. Echinocandins - structure, mechanism of action and use in antifungal therapy.Journal of enzyme inhibition and medicinal chemistry · 2022
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Studies in mycology · 2021
    Review
  10. Review
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

7 authors.

Joseph MeletiadisClinical Microbiology Laboratory, Attikon University General Hospital, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Maria SiopiClinical Microbiology Laboratory, Attikon University General Hospital, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Lamprini KaniouraDepartment of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Karin Meinike JørgensenUnit of Mycology, Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark.
David S PerlinPublic Health Research Institute, New Jersey Medical School, Rutgers Biomedical and Health Sciences, Newark, NJ, USA.
Johan W MoutonDepartment of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Maiken Cavling ArendrupUnit of Mycology, Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Funding

Critical Factors Influencing Echinocandin Resistance in CandidaglabrataR01AI109025 · NIAID · RBHS-NEW JERSEY MEDICAL SCHOOL · PI PERLIN, DAVID S · 2014 to 2025
$9.8M
NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI109025
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundReference antifungal susceptibility testing of echinocandins against Aspergillus spp. relies on the determination of the minimal effective concentration, which is difficult to perform, time-consuming and subjective. We developed and evaluated in a multicentre study an agar-based screening method for echinocandin susceptibility testing of Aspergillus spp.

methodsForty WT isolates [10 Aspergillus fumigatus species complex (SC), 10 Aspergillus flavus SC, 10 Aspergillus terreus SC and 10 Aspergillus niger SC] and 4 non-WT A. fumigatus isolates with or without known fks alterations were used. The optimal test conditions and stability over time were evaluated in preliminary studies monitoring colony growth. Twenty-microlitre aliquots of 1-2 McFarland inocula in 0.1% Tween 20 aqueous solution were added to each well and plates were incubated for 24/48 h at 35 ± 2°C. Subsequently, all isolates were tested blindly at three centres using four-well screening plates, containing anidulafungin, caspofungin, micafungin or no antifungal in each of the four wells, respectively.

resultsWT isolates produced fluffy colonies on drug-free agar wells only. The non-WT isolates produced fluffy colonies on echinocandin-containing and control agar wells. Using the echinocandin concentrations of 0.25 mg/L anidulafungin, 1 mg/L caspofungin and 0.125 mg/L micafungin, and the compact (non-fluffy) versus fluffy colony morphology endpoint, all centres successfully discriminated non-WT and WT strains even after 24 h. Among the three echinocandins, anidulafungin produced the clearest endpoints.

conclusionsThe four-well plate agar method is suitable for echinocandin susceptibility screening of Aspergillus spp. and can be used to detect echinocandin non-WT isolates.

Indexed as

AgarAntifungal AgentsAspergillusCulture MediaEchinocandinsMass ScreeningMicrobial Sensitivity TestsTemperatureAgarAntifungal AgentsCulture MediaEchinocandins

Identifiers

PMID31106352
PMCPMC6640300

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.