Comparative evaluation of etest, EUCAST, and CLSI methods for amphotericin B, voriconazole, and posaconazole against clinically relevant fusarium species

22Citations
Citations of this article
38Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

We compared EUCAST and CLSI methods versus Etest for antifungal susceptibility testing of 20 clinically relevant Fusarium species against amphotericin B, posaconazole, and voriconazole. The median Etest amphotericin B and posaconazole MICs were 1 dilution higher than the median EUCAST and the CLSI MICs. The essential agreement (within ±1/±2 dilutions) was 60/90%, 80/95%, and 70/85% between the Etest and EUCAST methods and 80/95%, 75/95%, and 45/100% between the Etest and CLSI methods for amphotericin B, voriconazole, and posaconazole, respectively. The categorical agreement was >85%. Etest can be used for antifungal susceptibility testing of Fusarium species.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Al-Hatmi, A. M. S., Normand, A. C., Ranque, S., Piarroux, R., De Hoog, G. S., Meletiadis, J., & Meis, J. F. (2017). Comparative evaluation of etest, EUCAST, and CLSI methods for amphotericin B, voriconazole, and posaconazole against clinically relevant fusarium species. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, 61(1). https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.01671-16

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free