Pfaller M A, Messer S A, Boyken L, Tendolkar S, Hollis R J, Diekema D J
Medical Microbiology Division, C606 GH, Department of Pathology, University of Iowa College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA.
J Clin Microbiol. 2008 Feb;46(2):551-9. doi: 10.1128/JCM.01952-07. Epub 2007 Dec 19.
There are currently no FDA-approved broth microdilution antifungal susceptibility testing products or interpretive breakpoints for susceptibility testing of the new triazole posaconazole. Fluconazole and voriconazole are in the same triazole class as posaconazole, have CLSI-approved interpretive MIC breakpoints, and are available on some commercially available MIC panels. We investigated whether one or both of these agents may be useful as a surrogate marker for posaconazole susceptibility. Fluconazole, voriconazole, and posaconazole MIC results for 10,807 isolates of Candida spp. were analyzed to validate a potential surrogate marker for posaconazole activity against indicated species. For illustrative purposes, we applied the voriconazole MIC breakpoints to posaconazole (susceptible, < or =1 microg/ml; susceptible dose dependent, 2 microg/ml; resistant, > or =4 microg/ml) and compared these MIC results and categorical interpretations with those of fluconazole and voriconazole by using regression statistics and categorical agreement. For all 10,807 isolates, the absolute categorical agreement was 91.1% (0.1% very major errors [VME], 1.2% major errors [ME], and 7.6% minor errors [M]) using fluconazole as the surrogate marker and 97.7% (0.3% VME 0.1% ME, and 1.9% M) using voriconazole as the surrogate. The results with fluconazole improved to a categorical agreement of 93.7% (0.1% VME, 0.2% ME, and 6.0% M) when results for Candida krusei (not indicated for fluconazole testing) were omitted. Either fluconazole or voriconazole MIC results may serve as surrogate markers to predict the susceptibility of Candida spp. to posaconazole.
目前尚无美国食品药品监督管理局(FDA)批准的用于新型三唑类药物泊沙康唑药敏试验的肉汤微量稀释抗真菌药敏试验产品或药敏判读标准。氟康唑和伏立康唑与泊沙康唑属于同一三唑类,有临床和实验室标准协会(CLSI)批准的最低抑菌浓度(MIC)判读标准,且在一些市售的MIC检测板上可用。我们研究了这两种药物中的一种或两种是否可用作泊沙康唑药敏的替代标志物。分析了10807株念珠菌属菌株的氟康唑、伏立康唑和泊沙康唑MIC结果,以验证针对指定菌种的泊沙康唑活性的潜在替代标志物。为便于说明,我们将伏立康唑的MIC判读标准应用于泊沙康唑(敏感,≤1μg/ml;剂量依赖性敏感,2μg/ml;耐药,≥4μg/ml),并通过回归统计和分类一致性将这些MIC结果及分类判读与氟康唑和伏立康唑的结果进行比较。对于所有10807株菌株,以氟康唑作为替代标志物时,绝对分类一致性为91.1%(0.1%极重大错误[VME],1.2%重大错误[ME],7.6%微小错误[M]),以伏立康唑作为替代标志物时为97.7%(0.3% VME,0.1% ME,1.9% M)。当剔除克鲁斯念珠菌(未指明用于氟康唑检测)的结果后,氟康唑的结果分类一致性提高到93.7%(0.1% VME,0.2% ME,6.0% M)。氟康唑或伏立康唑的MIC结果均可作为预测念珠菌属对泊沙康唑药敏性的替代标志物。