Back to Search Start Over

How to interpret MICs of antifungal compounds according to the revised clinical breakpoints v. 10.0 European committee on antimicrobial susceptibility testing (EUCAST)

Authors :
Arendrup, M. C.
Friberg, N.
Mares, M.
Kahlmeter, G.
Meletiadis, J.
Guinea, J.
Andersen, C. T.
Arikan, S.
Barchiesi, F.
Chryssanthou, E.
Hamal, P.
Järv, H.
Klimko, N.
Kurzai, O.
Lagrou, K.
Lass-Flörl, C.
Matos, T.
Muehlethaler, K.
Rogers, T. R.
Velegraki, A.
Arendrup, M. C.
Friberg, N.
Mares, M.
Kahlmeter, G.
Meletiadis, J.
Guinea, J.
Andersen, C. T.
Arikan, S.
Barchiesi, F.
Chryssanthou, E.
Hamal, P.
Järv, H.
Klimko, N.
Kurzai, O.
Lagrou, K.
Lass-Flörl, C.
Matos, T.
Muehlethaler, K.
Rogers, T. R.
Velegraki, A.
Source :
Arendrup , M C , Friberg , N , Mares , M , Kahlmeter , G , Meletiadis , J , Guinea , J , Andersen , C T , Arikan , S , Barchiesi , F , Chryssanthou , E , Hamal , P , Järv , H , Klimko , N , Kurzai , O , Lagrou , K , Lass-Flörl , C , Matos , T , Muehlethaler , K , Rogers , T R , Velegraki , A & Arikan , S 2020 , ' How to interpret MICs of antifungal compounds according to the revised clinical breakpoints v. 10.0 European committee on antimicrobial susceptibility testing (EUCAST) ' , Clinical Microbiology and Infection , vol. 26 , no. 11 , pp. 1464-1472 .
Publication Year :
2020

Abstract

Background: EUCAST has revised the definition of the susceptibility category I from ‘Intermediate’ to ‘Susceptible, Increased exposure’. This implies that I can be used where the drug concentration at the site of infection is high, either because of dose escalation or through other means to ensure efficacy. Consequently, I is no longer used as a buffer zone to prevent technical factors from causing misclassifications and discrepancies in interpretations. Instead, an Area of Technical Uncertainty (ATU) has been introduced for MICs that cannot be categorized without additional information as a warning to the laboratory that decision on how to act has to be made. To implement these changes, the EUCAST-AFST (Subcommittee on Antifungal Susceptibility Testing) reviewed all, and revised some, clinical antifungal breakpoints. Objectives: The aim was to present an overview of the current antifungal breakpoints and supporting evidence behind the changes. Sources: This document is based on the ten recently updated EUCAST rationale documents, clinical breakpoint and breakpoint ECOFF documents. Content: The following breakpoints (in mg/L) have been revised or established for Candida species: micafungin against C. albicans (ATU = 0.03); amphotericin B (S ≤/> R = 1/1), fluconazole (S ≤/> R = 2/4), itraconazole (S ≤/> R = 0.06/0.06), posaconazole (S ≤/> R = 0.06/0.06) and voriconazole (S ≤/> R = 0.06/0.25) against C. dubliniensis; fluconazole against C. glabrata (S ≤/> R = 0.001/16); and anidulafungin (S ≤/> R = 4/4) and micafungin (S ≤/> R = 2/2) against C. parapsilosis. For Aspergillus, new or revised breakpoints include itraconazole (ATU = 2) and isavuconazole against A. flavus (S ≤/> R = 1/2, ATU = 2); amphotericin B (S ≤/> R = 1/1), isavuconazole (S ≤ /> R = 1/2, ATU = 2), itraconazole (S ≤/> R = 1/1, ATU = 2), posaconazole (ATU = 0.25) and voriconazole (S ≤/> R = 1/1, ATU = 2) against A. fumigatus; itraconazole (S ≤/> R = 1/1, ATU

Details

Database :
OAIster
Journal :
Arendrup , M C , Friberg , N , Mares , M , Kahlmeter , G , Meletiadis , J , Guinea , J , Andersen , C T , Arikan , S , Barchiesi , F , Chryssanthou , E , Hamal , P , Järv , H , Klimko , N , Kurzai , O , Lagrou , K , Lass-Flörl , C , Matos , T , Muehlethaler , K , Rogers , T R , Velegraki , A & Arikan , S 2020 , ' How to interpret MICs of antifungal compounds according to the revised clinical breakpoints v. 10.0 European committee on antimicrobial susceptibility testing (EUCAST) ' , Clinical Microbiology and Infection , vol. 26 , no. 11 , pp. 1464-1472 .
Notes :
English
Publication Type :
Electronic Resource
Accession number :
edsoai.on1322752329
Document Type :
Electronic Resource