TABLE 4.
Evaluation of MICs in RPMI-2 compared to those in RPMI for Aspergillus and Fusariuma
| Drug and species | No. (%) of isolates for which MIC in RPMI-2 is as follows compared to MIC in RPMIb:
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ≥−2 | −1 | 0 | +1 | ≥+2 | |
| Amphotericin B | |||||
| Aspergillus | 18 (22.8) | 60 (76) | 1 (1.3) | ||
| Fusarium | 1 (4.6) | 6 (27.3) | 13 (59.1) | 2 (9.1) | |
| Itraconazole | |||||
| Aspergillus | 1 (1.3) | 7 (8.9) | 37 (46.8) | 33 (41.8) | 1 (1.3) |
| Fusarium | 19 (86.4) | 1 (4.6) | 2 (9.1) | ||
| Voriconazole | |||||
| Aspergillus | 4 (5.1) | 45 (57) | 26 (33) | 4 (5.1) | |
| Fusarium | 5 (22.7) | 14 (63.6) | 3 (13.6) | ||
a
The MICs for 79 Aspergillus isolates and 22 Fusarium isolates which were readable after 24 h were analyzed.
b
≥−2, MIC in RPMI-2 is twofold or more than twofold lower; −1, MIC in RPMI-2 is onefold lower; 0, MIC in RPMI-2 is identical to MIC in RPMI; +1, MIC in RPMI-2 is onefold higher; ≥+2, MIC in RPMI-2 is twofold or more than twofold higher.