TABLE 2.
Comparison of results of Etest and time-kill methods for the antifungal combination CAS plus AMB
| Isolate | FIC index for indicated test:
|
Interpretation of time-kill test | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Etest-1 (interpretation) | Etest-2 (interpretation) | ||
| 1 | 1.1 (I) | 7.18 (A) | I |
| 2 | 2.52 (I) | 1.01 (I) | I |
| 3 | 3.66 (I) | 2.34 (I) | I |
| 4 | 1.97 (I) | 1.16 (I) | I |
| 5 | 2.28 (I) | 1.25 (I) | I |
| 6 | 0.92 (I) | 0.74 (I) | I |
| 7 | 0.62 (I) | 0.83 (I) | I |
| 8 | 0.13 (S) | 1.48 (I) | S |
| 9 | 0.83 (I) | 0.88 (I) | S |
| 10 | 0.54 (I) | 1.16 (I) | I |
| 11 | 0.17 (S) | 0.7 (I) | S |
| 12 | 1.33 (I) | 0.58 (I) | S |
| 13 | 0.99 (I) | 0.49 (S) | I |
| 14 | 0.51 (I) | 0.67 (I) | I |
| 15 | 0.83 (I) | 0.86 (I) | I |
| 16 | 0.42 (S) | 0.83 (I) | S |
| 17 | 0.56 (I) | 1.01 (I) | I |
| 18 | 1.19 (I) | 0.88 (I) | I |
| 19 | 0.34 (S) | 0.58 (I) | S |
| 20 | 0.42 (S) | 0.57 (I) | S |
| 21 | 0.27 (S) | 0.37 (S) | S |
| 22 | 0.47 (S) | 0.89 (I) | S |
| 23 | 0.47 (S) | 0.43 (S) | S |
| 24 | 0.03 (S) | 0.38 (S) | S |
| 25 | 0.08 (S) | 0.83 (I) | S |
| 26 | 0.36 (S) | 1 (I) | S |
| 27 | 0.06 (S) | 1.23 (I) | S |
| 28 | 0.28 (S) | 0.75 (I) | S |
| 29 | 0.17 (S) | 1 (I) | S |
| 30 | 0.02 (S) | 0.11 (S) | S |
| 31 | 0.42 (S) | 0.83 (I) | S |
| 32 | 0.55 (I) | 0.68 (I) | I |
| 33 | 0.06 (S) | 0.82 (I) | S |
| 34 | 0.59 (I) | 0.38 (S) | I |
| 35 | 2.23 (I) | 4.34 (A) | I |
| 36 | 0.1 (S) | 2.26 (I) | S |
| 37 | 0.42 (S) | 1.26 (I) | S |
| 38 | 1.7 (I) | 1.34 (I) | S |
| 39 | 0.85 (I) | 0.77 (I) | I |
| 40 | 0.63 (I) | 1.23 (I) | I |
| 41 | 0.34 (S) | 0.99 (I) | S |
| 42 | 8.01 (A) | 8.17 (A) | I |
| 43 | 0.68 (I) | 0.51 (I) | I |
| 44 | 0.83 (I) | 0.7 (I) | I |
| 45 | 1.26 (I) | 1.01 (I) | I |
| 46 | 3 (I) | 1.42 (I) | I |
| 47 | 1.19 (I) | 1.18 (I) | I |
| 48 | 1.56 (I) | 1 (I) | I |
| 49 | 3.66 (I) | 1.43 (I) | I |
| 50 | 2.19 (I) | 1.18 (I) | I |
a S, synergy; I, indifference; A, antagonism.