IAspergillus/I Section ITerrei/I and Antifungals: From Broth to Agar-Based Susceptibility Testing Methods

• Published in: Journal of fungi (Basel) Vol. 9; no. 3
• Main Authors: Vahedi-Shahandashti, Roya, Hahn, Lisa, Houbraken, Jos, Lass-Flörl, Cornelia
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: MDPI AG 01.02.2023
• Subjects: Amphotericin B; Analysis; Antiparasitic agents; Epidemiology; Health aspects; Methods; Molds (Fungi); Austria
• ISSN: 2309-608X; 2309-608X
• DOI: 10.3390/jof9030306

Providing timely antifungal treatment to patients suffering from life-threatening invasive fungal infections (IFIs) is essential. Due to the changing epidemiology and the emergence of antifungal resistance in Aspergillus, the most commonly responsible mold of IFIs, antifungal susceptibility testing (AFST) has become increasingly important to guide clinical decisions. This study assessed the essential agreement (EA) between broth microdilution methods (the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) and the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST)) and the Etest of amphotericin B (AmB), liposomal amphotericin B (L-AmB), and isavuconazole (ISA) against 112 Aspergillus section Terrei. An EA within ±2 dilutions of ≥90% between the two methods was considered acceptable. Excellent EA was found between EUCAST and CLSI of AmB and ISA (98.2% and 95.5%, respectively). The correlation of Etest results and EUCAST/CLSI was not acceptable (<90%) for any tested antifungal; however, Etest and CLSI for AmB (79.6%) and ISA (77.6%) showed a higher EA than Etest and EUCAST for AmB (49.5%) and ISA (46.4%). It was concluded that the Etest method requires its own clinical breakpoints (CBPs) and epidemiological cutoff values (ECVs), and interpreting Etest results using EUCAST and CLSI-adapted CBPs and ECVs could result in misinterpretation as Etest shows lower minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs).