Department of Medical Microbiology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Foundation Atlas of Clinical Fungi, Hilversum, The Netherlands.
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2020 Mar 24;64(4). doi: 10.1128/AAC.02261-19.
We compared MIC test strip (MTS) and Sensititre YeastOne (SYO) methods with EUCAST and CLSI methods for amphotericin B, 5-fluocytosine, fluconazole, voriconazole, and isavuconazole against 106 isolates. The overall essential agreement between the EUCAST and CLSI methods was >72% and >94% at ±1 and ±2 dilutions, respectively. The essential agreements between SYO and EUCAST/CLSI for amphotericin B, 5-flucytosine, fluconazole, and voriconazole were >89/>93% and between MTS and EUCAST/CLSI were >57/>75%. Very major error rates were low for amphotericin B and fluconazole (<3%) and a bit higher for the other drugs (<8%).
我们比较了 MIC 测试条(MTS)和 Sensititre YeastOne(SYO)方法与 EUCAST 和 CLSI 方法在抗真菌药物两性霉素 B、5-氟胞嘧啶、氟康唑、伏立康唑和伊曲康唑对 106 株分离株的效果。EUCAST 和 CLSI 方法之间的总体基本一致率分别为±1 和±2 稀释度时均>72%和>94%。SYO 与 EUCAST/CLSI 之间的基本一致率对两性霉素 B、5-氟胞嘧啶、氟康唑和伏立康唑分别为>89%/>93%,MTS 与 EUCAST/CLSI 之间分别为>57%/>75%。两性霉素 B 和氟康唑的非常大误差率较低(<3%),其他药物的误差率略高(<8%)。