4.7 Article

Fluconazole and voriconazole multidisk testing of Candida species for disk test calibration and MIC estimation

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 39, 期 4, 页码 1422-1428

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.39.4.1422-1428.2001

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fluconazole and voriconazole MICs were determined for 114 clinical Candida isolates, including isolates of Candida albicans, Candida glabrata, Candida krusei, Candida lusitaniae, Candida parapsilosis, and Candida tropicalis, All strains were susceptible to voriconazole, and most strains were also susceptible to fluconazole, with the exception of C, glabrata and C, krusei, the latter being fully fluconazole resistant. Single-strain regression analysis (SRA) was applied to 54 strains, including American Type Culture Collection reference strains. The regression lines obtained were markedly different for the different Candida species. Using an MIC limit of susceptibility to fluconazole of less than or equal to8 mug/ml, according to NCCLS standards, the zone breakpoint for susceptibility for the 25-mug fluconazole disk was calculated to be greater than or equal to 18 mm for C, albicans and greater than or equal to 22 mm for C, glabrata and C, krusei. SRA results for voriconazole were used to estimate an optimal disk content according to rational criteria. A 5-mug disk content of voriconazole gave measurable zones for a tentative resistance limit of 4 mug/ml, whereas a 2.5-mug disk gave zones at the same MIC level for only three of the species, A novel SRA modification, multidisk testing, was also applied to the two major species, C, albicans and C. glabrata, and the MIC estimates were compared with the true MICs for the isolates, There was a significant correlation between the two measurements, Our results show that disk diffusion methods might be useful for azole testing of Candida isolates. The method can be calibrated using SRA. Multidisk testing gives direct estimations of the MICs for the isolates.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据