用不同方法研究从全身临床样本中分离出的曲霉菌种的抗真菌敏感性

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q4 IMMUNOLOGY Indian Journal of Medical Microbiology Pub Date : 2024-06-08 DOI:10.1016/j.ijmmb.2024.100642
Emine Korkmaz, M. Cem Ergon
{"title":"用不同方法研究从全身临床样本中分离出的曲霉菌种的抗真菌敏感性","authors":"Emine Korkmaz,&nbsp;M. Cem Ergon","doi":"10.1016/j.ijmmb.2024.100642","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>Due to the potential for <em>Aspergillus</em> species to cause lethal infections and the rising rates of antifungal resistance, the significance of antifungal susceptibility tests has increased. We aimed to assess the sensitivities of <em>Aspergillus</em> species to amphotericin B (AMB), voriconazole (VOR), itraconazole (ITZ), and caspofungin (CAS) using disk diffusion (DD) and gradient diffusion (GD) methods and compare them with broth microdilution (BMD) as the reference susceptibility method.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>The study involved 62 <em>Aspergillus fumigatus</em>, 28 <em>Aspergillus flavus</em>, and 16 <em>Aspergillus terreus</em> isolates, totaling 106 <em>Aspergillus</em> isolates. BMD and DD methods were performed in accordance with CLSI M38-A2 and CLSI M51-A documents, respectively. The GD method utilized nonsupplemented Mueller Hinton agar (MHA) as the medium.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>In the BMD method, the lowest minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC)<sub>90</sub> or minimal effective concentration (MEC)<sub>90</sub> values were observed for VOR and CAS (0.5 μg/mL and 0.06 μg/mL, respectively). AMB and ITZ MIC<sub>90</sub> values were both 2 μg/mL. In our comparison of the GD method with the BMD method at ±2 dilution, we observed essential agreement rates of 91.6%, 99.1%, 100%, and 38.6% for AMB, VOR, ITZ, and CAS, respectively. When comparing DD and BMD methods, we found categorical agreement rates of 65.1%, 99.1%, 77.3%, and 100% for AMB, VOR, ITZ, and CAS, respectively. For GD and BMD methods, these rates were 79.2%, 99.1%, 87.8%, and 100%.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Given the high essential and categorical agreement rates, we posit that the GD method is a viable alternative to the BMD method for AMB, ITZ and VOR but not for CAS. In addition, the use of nonsupplemented MHA in the GD method proves advantageous due to its cost-effectiveness and widespread availability compared to other growth media.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":13284,"journal":{"name":"Indian Journal of Medical Microbiology","volume":"50 ","pages":"Article 100642"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Investigation of antifungal susceptibility of Aspergillus species isolated from systemic clinical specimens by different methods\",\"authors\":\"Emine Korkmaz,&nbsp;M. Cem Ergon\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ijmmb.2024.100642\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>Due to the potential for <em>Aspergillus</em> species to cause lethal infections and the rising rates of antifungal resistance, the significance of antifungal susceptibility tests has increased. We aimed to assess the sensitivities of <em>Aspergillus</em> species to amphotericin B (AMB), voriconazole (VOR), itraconazole (ITZ), and caspofungin (CAS) using disk diffusion (DD) and gradient diffusion (GD) methods and compare them with broth microdilution (BMD) as the reference susceptibility method.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>The study involved 62 <em>Aspergillus fumigatus</em>, 28 <em>Aspergillus flavus</em>, and 16 <em>Aspergillus terreus</em> isolates, totaling 106 <em>Aspergillus</em> isolates. BMD and DD methods were performed in accordance with CLSI M38-A2 and CLSI M51-A documents, respectively. The GD method utilized nonsupplemented Mueller Hinton agar (MHA) as the medium.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>In the BMD method, the lowest minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC)<sub>90</sub> or minimal effective concentration (MEC)<sub>90</sub> values were observed for VOR and CAS (0.5 μg/mL and 0.06 μg/mL, respectively). AMB and ITZ MIC<sub>90</sub> values were both 2 μg/mL. In our comparison of the GD method with the BMD method at ±2 dilution, we observed essential agreement rates of 91.6%, 99.1%, 100%, and 38.6% for AMB, VOR, ITZ, and CAS, respectively. When comparing DD and BMD methods, we found categorical agreement rates of 65.1%, 99.1%, 77.3%, and 100% for AMB, VOR, ITZ, and CAS, respectively. For GD and BMD methods, these rates were 79.2%, 99.1%, 87.8%, and 100%.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Given the high essential and categorical agreement rates, we posit that the GD method is a viable alternative to the BMD method for AMB, ITZ and VOR but not for CAS. In addition, the use of nonsupplemented MHA in the GD method proves advantageous due to its cost-effectiveness and widespread availability compared to other growth media.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13284,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Indian Journal of Medical Microbiology\",\"volume\":\"50 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100642\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Indian Journal of Medical Microbiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0255085724001178\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"IMMUNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Journal of Medical Microbiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0255085724001178","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"IMMUNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:由于曲霉菌可能导致致命性感染,而且抗真菌耐药率不断上升,因此抗真菌药敏试验的重要性日益凸显。我们的目的是使用盘扩散(DD)和梯度扩散(GD)方法评估曲霉菌对两性霉素 B(AMB)、伏立康唑(VOR)、伊曲康唑(ITZ)和卡泊芬净(CAS)的敏感性,并将它们与肉汤微量稀释(BMD)作为参考敏感性方法进行比较:研究涉及 62 个烟曲霉、28 个黄曲霉和 16 个赤曲霉分离物,共计 106 个曲霉分离物。BMD 和 DD 方法分别根据 CLSI M38-A2 和 CLSI M51-A 文件执行。GD 方法使用无添加的穆勒欣顿琼脂(MHA)作为培养基:在 BMD 法中,VOR 和 CAS 的最小抑菌浓度 (MIC)90 或最小有效浓度 (MEC)90 值最低(分别为 0.5 μg/mL 和 0.06 μg/mL)。AMB 和 ITZ 的 MIC90 值均为 2 μg/mL。在±2稀释度下比较 GD 方法和 BMD 方法时,我们观察到 AMB、VOR、ITZ 和 CAS 的基本一致率分别为 91.6%、99.1%、100% 和 38.6%。在比较 DD 和 BMD 方法时,我们发现 AMB、VOR、ITZ 和 CAS 的分类一致率分别为 65.1%、99.1%、77.3% 和 100%。对于 GD 和 BMD 方法,这些比率分别为 79.2%、99.1%、87.8% 和 100%:结论:鉴于基本一致率和分类一致率都很高,我们认为在 AMB、ITZ 和 VOR 方面,GD 方法是 BMD 方法的可行替代方法,但在 CAS 方面则不是。此外,与其他生长介质相比,在 GD 方法中使用无添加的 MHA 具有成本效益高、供应广泛等优点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Investigation of antifungal susceptibility of Aspergillus species isolated from systemic clinical specimens by different methods

Purpose

Due to the potential for Aspergillus species to cause lethal infections and the rising rates of antifungal resistance, the significance of antifungal susceptibility tests has increased. We aimed to assess the sensitivities of Aspergillus species to amphotericin B (AMB), voriconazole (VOR), itraconazole (ITZ), and caspofungin (CAS) using disk diffusion (DD) and gradient diffusion (GD) methods and compare them with broth microdilution (BMD) as the reference susceptibility method.

Methods

The study involved 62 Aspergillus fumigatus, 28 Aspergillus flavus, and 16 Aspergillus terreus isolates, totaling 106 Aspergillus isolates. BMD and DD methods were performed in accordance with CLSI M38-A2 and CLSI M51-A documents, respectively. The GD method utilized nonsupplemented Mueller Hinton agar (MHA) as the medium.

Results

In the BMD method, the lowest minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC)90 or minimal effective concentration (MEC)90 values were observed for VOR and CAS (0.5 μg/mL and 0.06 μg/mL, respectively). AMB and ITZ MIC90 values were both 2 μg/mL. In our comparison of the GD method with the BMD method at ±2 dilution, we observed essential agreement rates of 91.6%, 99.1%, 100%, and 38.6% for AMB, VOR, ITZ, and CAS, respectively. When comparing DD and BMD methods, we found categorical agreement rates of 65.1%, 99.1%, 77.3%, and 100% for AMB, VOR, ITZ, and CAS, respectively. For GD and BMD methods, these rates were 79.2%, 99.1%, 87.8%, and 100%.

Conclusions

Given the high essential and categorical agreement rates, we posit that the GD method is a viable alternative to the BMD method for AMB, ITZ and VOR but not for CAS. In addition, the use of nonsupplemented MHA in the GD method proves advantageous due to its cost-effectiveness and widespread availability compared to other growth media.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
154
审稿时长
73 days
期刊介绍: Manuscripts of high standard in the form of original research, multicentric studies, meta analysis, are accepted. Current reports can be submitted as brief communications. Case reports must include review of current literature, clinical details, outcome and follow up. Letters to the editor must be a comment on or pertain to a manuscript already published in the IJMM or in relation to preliminary communication of a larger study. Review articles, Special Articles or Guest Editorials are accepted on invitation.
期刊最新文献
Comparison of intra-assay and inter-assay reproducibility and positive detection times of two different (BacT/Alert 3D and Autobio BC) commercial blood culture systems. "The Nexus of Extensively Drug-Resistant Gram-Negative Bacteria and Intensive Care: Elucidating Propagation Patterns to Fortify Infection Control Measures". Pattern of Rapidly growing Mycobacteria (RGM) species isolated from clinical samples: A 10-year retrospective study in a tertiary care hospital of Bangladesh. Exploring the necessity of molecular detection for Streptococcus dysgalactiae subsp equisimilis: Often misdiagnosed, and emerging pathogen Testing new waters in management of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia blood stream infection in a post cardiac surgery patient
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1