ABSTRACT
We used a Vitek 2 AST–YS08 (YS08) system and the broth microdilution method (BMD) adopted by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) to compare the susceptibility of 184 isolates of 11 Candida species to fluconazole, voriconazole, micafungin, caspofungin, amphotericin B, and flucytosine. In Candida albicans, the categorical agreement (CA) was 79.2%, 91.7%, 95.8%, and 95.8% for fluconazole, voriconazole, micafungin, and caspofungin, respectively. About 12.5% and 4.2% of very major errors were detected for fluconazole and voriconazole, respectively. C. glabrata showed excellent essential agreements (EAs) (>90%) for azoles but different MIC distributions for fluconazole and caspofungin. The CA between BMD fluconazole MICs and YS08 voriconazole MICs by the method-specific clinical breakpoint (CBP) was 90% in C. glabrata. Over 80% of C. glabrata and C. krusei isolates identified as micafungin–susceptible were labeled intermediate or resistant to caspofungin in YS08. In C. parapsilosis, 5.3% of very major errors and 10.5% of minor errors were found, whereas 33.3% of minor errors were observed in C. tropicalis for fluconazole. For C. tropicalis, 13 (61.9%) non-wild type (WT) isolates of fluconazole and 7 (33.3%) non-WTs of voriconazole were classified in YS08 as WT. For C. auris, the EAs were 93.3%, 100%, 82.2%, 97.8%, and 97.8% for fluconazole, voriconazole, micafungin, caspofungin, and amphotericin B, respectively. YS08 showed comparable results to the BMD. However, considering the lower YS08 fluconazole MIC results compared with BMD in Candida species and YS08 caspofungin results in C. glabrata and C. krusei, improvements are needed.
IMPORTANCE The new Vitek 2 AST–YS08 (YS08) card has been updated to reflect the recently revised Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) guideline. In this study, antifungal drug susceptibility tests were performed using the YS08 card and compared with the CLSI broth microdilution (BMD) method. In conclusion, YS08 showed similar results to BMD, including with C. auris. However, about 12.5% and 4.2% of major errors were detected for fluconazole and voriconazole, respectively, in C. albicans. More than 80% of C. glabrata and C. krusei isolates identified as susceptible to micafungin were labeled moderate or resistant to caspofungin in YS08. The categorical agreement between BMD fluconazole MICs and YS08 voriconazole MICs was 90% by the method-specific CBP of voriconazole, 80% by the current epidemiological cutoff value (ECV) (0.25 μg/mL) of voriconazole, and 85% by the previous ECV (0.5 μg/mL) of voriconazole. Further improvements in YS08 for the detection of fluconazole and echinocandin resistance are thus needed.
KEYWORDS: Candida, antifungal susceptibility, Vitek 2 AST–YS08, broth microdilution, epidemiological cutoff value
INTRODUCTION
Candida species are normal commensals that localize on the skin and mucosal membranes of genitals and the gastrointestinal tract. However, they can cause various infections in vulnerable patients, such as the elderly, hospitalized, or immunosuppressed (1). Invasive fungal infection due to Candida species is widely recognized as a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in medical environments (2). The mortality rate from invasive candidiasis is estimated to be around 19–40% (3), and is much higher in intensive care unit patients, approaching 70% (4). The distribution of species has changed over the past decades (3). Candida albicans was previously the predominant pathogen (3, 5), but in recent years, C. glabrata, C. tropicalis, C. krusei, C. parapsilosis, and C. lusitaniae have emerged as important pathogens (6). According to epidemiologic surveillance data from Korea, C. tropicalis (36.4%) is the most common non-albicans Candida, followed by C. glabrata (28.5%), C. parapsilosis (24.7%), and C. krusei (2.6%) (7). Cyberlindnera fabianii (Candida fabianii) is an uncommon opportunistic yeast species, but it has the ability to cause septicemia and rapidly acquire resistance to fluconazole and voriconazole (8).
Antifungal agents target various biosynthetic pathways of pathogens. Echinocandins target biosynthesis of the cell wall. Azoles target the important enzyme 14α–demethylase in ergosterol biosynthesis. Flucytosine (5–FC) interferes with nucleic acid biosynthesis. Polyene drugs, including amphotericin B, bind with ergosterol to form pores and are fungicidal (1, 9).
An important factor that may contribute to therapeutic failure is antifungal agent resistance (1). Increased MICs and other specific mechanisms of resistance are associated with treatment failure and mortality, making empirical treatment choices difficult for clinicians (10). The molecular mechanisms involved in antifungal resistance include overexpression of membrane transporters, changes in the biosynthesis of the cell wall and ergosterol, mutations in the transcription factors that regulate membrane transporters, and ergosterol biosynthesis (9).
In addition, the emergence of multidrug-resistant C. glabrata and C. auris, the increase of fluconazole-resistant C. tropicalis and C. parapsilosis, and the existence of the intrinsically resistant C. krusei are more problematic (11). C. auris has emerged as a new multidrug-resistant species that causes a wide range of infections, especially in intensive care units (12). In 2016, the Infectious Diseases Society of America recommended antifungal susceptibility testing for azoles in clinically relevant Candida isolates and all bloodstream infections (2).
Broth microdilution (BMD) is considered the most reliable reference method for the evaluation of antifungal susceptibility in Candida species (13). The Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) has developed a standard method and established clinical breakpoints (CBPs) for the most common Candida species (14). The epidemiological cutoff value (ECV) identifies isolates that have a non-wild type (WT) profile, and CLSI has updated its documentation to provide ECVs for the less prevalent Candida species (15).
Vitek 2 (bioMérieux, Marcy l’Etoile, France) is a fully automated system capable of performing microbial identification and susceptibility testing. The system can be applied to bacteria and yeast and is used by many laboratories because of its rapidity and ease of use (16). The new Vitek 2 antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) system for yeast, AST-YS08 card, has been updated to reflect the recently revised CLSI CBP for common Candida species (17).
The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical applicability of the new Vitek 2 AST–YS08 (YS08) card by comparing it with the results of the BMD method by CLSI.
RESULTS
MIC distributions for each Candida species were determined by CLSI reference broth microdilution method (Table 1). For C. albicans, the categorical agreement (CA) was 79.2%, 91.7%, 95.8%, and 95.8% for fluconazole, voriconazole, micafungin, and caspofungin, respectively. The very major errors of 12.5% (3/24) for fluconazole and 4.2% (1/24) for voriconazole were detected in C. albicans. The essential agreements (EAs) between the BMD and YS08 were 83.3%, 91.7%, 95.8%, 95.8%, and 95.8% for fluconazole, voriconazole, micafungin, caspofungin, and amphotericin B, respectively, in C. albicans.
TABLE 1.
In vitro antifungal susceptibility profiles analyzed by CLSI clinical breakpoints except for C. aurisa
| MIC (mg/L) | EA | S | I or SDD | R | CA | VME | ME | MiE | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Candida species | Antifungal agents | Method | Breakpoints (μg/mL) | Median (range) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) |
| C. albicans (n = 24) | Fluconazole | BMD | S: ≤ 2, SDD: 4, R: ≥ 8 | 0.5 (0.12–32) | 20 (83.3) | 18 (75) | 2 (8.3) | 4 (16.7) | 19 (79.2) | 3 (12.5) | 2 (8.3) | |
| YS08 | 0.5 (0.5–8) | 23 (95.8) | 1 (4.2) | |||||||||
| Voriconazole | BMD | S:≤ 0.12, I: 0.25–0.5, R: ≥ 1 | 0.03 (0.008–16) | 22 (91.7) | 22 (91.7) | 1 (4.2) | 1 (4.2) | 22 (91.7) | 1 (4.2) | 1 (4.2) | ||
| YS08 | 0.12 (0.06–4) | 22 (91.7) | 1 (4.2) | 1 (4.2) | ||||||||
| Micafungin | BMD | S: ≤ 0.25, I: 0.5, R: ≥ 1 | 0.015 (0.008–8) | 23 (95.8) | 23 (95.8) | 1 (4.2) | 23 (95.8) | 1 (4.2) | ||||
| YS08 | 0.06 (0.06) | 24 (100) | ||||||||||
| Caspofungin | BMD | S: ≤ 0.25, I: 0.5, R: ≥ 1 | 0.06 (0.008–8) | 23 (95.8) | 23 (95.8) | 1 (4.2) | 23 (95.8) | 1 (4.2) | ||||
| YS08 | 0.12 (0.12) | 24 (100) | ||||||||||
| Amphotericin B | BMD | NA | 0.5 (0.25–8) | 23 (95.8) | ||||||||
| YS08 | 0.5 (0.25–0.5) | |||||||||||
| Flucytosine | BMD | NA | 0.06 (0.06–64) | 21 (87.5) | ||||||||
| YS08 | 1 (1–64) | |||||||||||
| C. glabrata (n = 20) | Fluconazole | BMD | SDD:≤ 32, R: ≥ 64 | 16 (2–64) | 18 (90) | 15 (75) | 5 (25) | |||||
| YS08 | 16 (8–32) | |||||||||||
| Voriconazole | BMD | NA | 0.25 (0.03–8) | 19 (95) | ||||||||
| YS08b | S: ≤ 1, I: 2, R: ≥ 4 | 0.25 (0.12–8) | 16 (80) | 1 (5.0) | 3 (15) | |||||||
| Micafungin | BMD | S: ≤ 0.06, I: 0.12, R: ≥ 0.25 | 0.015 (0.008–0.06) | 20 (100) | 20 (100) | 20 (100) | ||||||
| YS08 | 0.06 (0.06) | 20 (100) | ||||||||||
| Caspofungin | BMD | S: ≤ 0.12, I: 0.25, R: ≥ 0.5 | 0.03 (0.03–0.25) | 9 (45) | 20 (100) | 3 (15) | 0 (0) | 2 (10) | 15 (75) | |||
| YS08 | 0.25 (0.12–5) | 3 (15) | 15 (75) | 2 (10) | ||||||||
| Amphotericin B | BMD | NA | 1 (0.12–2) | 20 (100) | ||||||||
| YS08 | 0.5 (0.5–1) | |||||||||||
| Flucytosine | BMD | NA | 0.06 (0.06) | 20 (100) | ||||||||
| YS08 | 1 (1) | |||||||||||
| C. guilliermondii (n = 9) | Fluconazole | BMD | NA | 4 (1–16) | 8 (88.9) | |||||||
| YS08 | 2 (2–4) | |||||||||||
| Voriconazole | BMD | NA | 0.06 (0.015–0.5) | 9 (100) | ||||||||
| YS08 | 0.12 (0.12–0.25) | |||||||||||
| Micafungin | BMD | S: ≤ 2, I: 4, R: ≥ 8 | 0.5 (0.06–2) | 7 (77.8) | 9 (100) | 9 (100) | ||||||
| YS08 | 0.5 (0.12–2) | 9 (100) | ||||||||||
| Caspofungin | BMD | S: ≤ 2, I: 4, R: ≥ 8 | 0.5 (0.06–2) | 8 (88.9) | 9 (100) | 9 (100) | ||||||
| YS08 | 0.5 (0.25–1) | 9 (100) | ||||||||||
| Amphotericin B | BMD | NA | 0.5 (0.12–0.5) | 9 (100) | ||||||||
| YS08 | 0.25 (0.25–0.5) | |||||||||||
| Flucytosine | BMD | NA | 0.06 (0.06–0.12) | 9 (100) | ||||||||
| YS08 | 1 (1) | |||||||||||
| C. krusei (n = 15) | Fluconazole | BMD | NA | 64 (32–128) | 6 (40) | |||||||
| YS08 | 8 (8) | |||||||||||
| Voriconazole | BMD | S: ≤ 0.5, I: 1, R: ≥ 2 | 0.25 (0.25–0.5) | 15 (100) | 15 (100) | 15 (100) | ||||||
| YS08 | 0.12 (0.12–0.25) | 15 (100) | ||||||||||
| Micafungin | BMD | S: ≤ 0.25, I: 0.5, R: ≥ 1 | 0.12 (0.06–0.25) | 15 (100) | 15 (100) | 15 (100) | ||||||
| YS08 | 0.12 (0.06–0.12) | 15 (100) | ||||||||||
| Caspofungin | BMD | S: ≤ 0.25, I: 0.5, R: ≥ 1 | 0.25 (0.12–0.5) | 15 (100) | 11 (73.3) | 4 (26.7) | 7 (46.7) | 8 (53.3) | ||||
| YS08 | 0.5 (0.25–0.5) | 3 (20) | 12 (80) | |||||||||
| Amphotericin B | BMD | NA | 1 (0.5–2) | 14 (93.3) | ||||||||
| YS08 | 0.5 (0.25–4) | |||||||||||
| Flucytosine | BMD | NA | 16 (8–32) | 15 (100) | ||||||||
| YS08 | 16 (8–32) | |||||||||||
| C. lusitaniae (n = 6)c | Fluconazole | BMD | S: ≤ 2, SDD: 4, R: ≥ 8 | 0.5 (0.25–1) | 6 (100) | 6 (100) | 6 (100) | |||||
| YS08 | 0.5 (0.5) | 6 (100) | ||||||||||
| Voriconazole | BMD | S: ≤ 0.12, I: 0.25–0.5, R: ≥ 1 | 0.008 (0.008–0.015) | 6 (100) | 6 (100) | 6 (100) | ||||||
| YS08 | 0.12 (0.12) | 6 (100) | ||||||||||
| Micafungin | BMD | S: ≤ 0.25, I: 0.5, R: ≥ 1 | 0.06 (0.03–0.06) | 6 (100) | 6 (100) | 6 (100) | ||||||
| YS08 | 0.12 (0.12) | 6 (100) | ||||||||||
| Caspofungin | BMD | S: ≤ 0.25, I: 0.5, R: ≥ 1 | 0.185 (0.06–0.25) | 6 (100) | 6 (100) | 6 (100) | ||||||
| YS08 | 0.25 (0.25) | 6 (100) | ||||||||||
| Amphotericin B | BMD | NA | 0.25 (0.25–0.5) | 6 (100) | ||||||||
| YS08 | 0.5 (0.5) | |||||||||||
| Flucytosine | BMD | NA | 0.06 (0.06) | 6 (100) | ||||||||
| YS08 | 1 (1) | |||||||||||
| C. orthopsilosis (n = 5)c | Fluconazole | BMD | S: ≤ 2, SDD: 4, R: ≥ 8 | 1 (0.5–4) | 4 (80) | 4 (80) | 1 (20) | 4 (80) | 1 (20) | |||
| YS08 | 0.5 (0.5) | 5 (100) | ||||||||||
| Voriconazole | BMD | S: ≤ 0.12, I: 0.25–0.5, R: ≥ 1 | 0.03 (0.015–0.25) | 5 (100) | 4 (80) | 1 (20) | 4 (80) | 1 (20) | ||||
| YS08 | 0.12 (0.12) | 5 (100) | ||||||||||
| Micafungin | BMD | S: ≤ 0.25, I: 0.5, R: ≥ 1 | 0.5 (0.5) | 5 (100) | 5 (100) | 1 (20) | 4 (80) | |||||
| YS08 | 0.12 (0.12–0.5) | 4 (80) | 1 (20) | |||||||||
| Caspofungin | BMD | S: ≤ 0.25, I: 0.5, R: ≥ 1 | 0.5 (0.5) | 5 (100) | 5 (100) | 0 | 5 (100) | |||||
| YS08 | 0.12 (0.12–0.25) | 5 (100) | ||||||||||
| Amphotericin B | BMD | NA | 0.5 (0.5–1) | 5 (100) | ||||||||
| YS08 | 0.25 (0.25–0.5) | |||||||||||
| Flucytosine | BMD | NA | 0.12 (0.06–0.5) | 5 (100) | ||||||||
| YS08 | 1 (1) | |||||||||||
| C. parapsilosis (n = 19) | Fluconazole | BMD | S: ≤ 2, SDD: 4, R: ≥ 8 | 2 (0.25–8) | 17 (89.5) | 17 (89.5) | 1 (5.3) | 1 (5.3) | 16 (84.2) | 1 (5.3) | 2 (10.5) | |
| YS08 | 1 (0.5–4) | 18 (94.7) | 1 (5.3) | |||||||||
| Voriconazole | BMD | S: ≤ 0.12, I: 0.25–0.5, R: ≥ 1 | 0.03 (0.008–0.06) | 19 (100) | 19 (100) | 19 (100) | ||||||
| YS08 | 0.12 (0.12) | 19 (100) | ||||||||||
| Micafungin | BMD | S: ≤ 2, I: 4, R: ≥ 8 | 2 (1–2) | 19 (100) | 19 (100) | 19 (100) | ||||||
| YS08 | 0.5 (0.5–1) | 19 (100) | ||||||||||
| Caspofungin | BMD | S: ≤ 2, I: 4, R: ≥ 8 | 1 (0.5–4) | 19 (100) | 18 (94.7) | 1 (5.3) | 18 (94.7) | 1 (5.3) | ||||
| YS08 | 1 (0.5–1) | 19 (100) | ||||||||||
| Amphotericin B | BMD | NA | 0.5 (0.12–1) | 19 (100) | ||||||||
| YS08 | 0.5 (0.5–1) | |||||||||||
| Flucytosine | BMD | NA | 0.06 (0.06–0.25) | 19 (100) | ||||||||
| YS08 | 1 (1) | |||||||||||
| C. pelliculosa (n = 8)c | Fluconazole | BMD | S: ≤ 2, SDD: 4, R: ≥ 8 | 4 (2–8) | 8 (100) | 2 (25) | 5 (62.5) | 1 (12.5) | 2 (25) | 1 (12.5) | 5 (62.5) | |
| YS08 | 2 (2) | 8 (100) | ||||||||||
| Voriconazole | BMD | S: ≤ 0.12, I: 0.25–0.5, R: ≥ 1 | 0.12 (0.06–0.25) | 8 (100) | 7 (87.5) | 1 (12.5) | 8 (100) | |||||
| YS08 | 0.12 (0.12–0.25) | 7 (87.5) | 1 (12.5) | |||||||||
| Micafungin | BMD | S: ≤ 0.25, I: 0.5, R: ≥ 1 | 0.03 (0.015–0.03) | 8 (100) | 8 (100) | 8 (100) | ||||||
| YS08 | 0.06 (0.06) | 8 (100) | ||||||||||
| Caspofungin | BMD | S: ≤ 0.25, I: 0.5, R: ≥ 1 | 0.03 (0.015–0.06) | 7 (87.5) | 8 (100) | 8 (100) | ||||||
| YS08 | 0.185 (0.12–0.25) | 8 (100) | ||||||||||
| Amphotericin B | BMD | NA | 0.25 (0.12–1) | 8 (100) | ||||||||
| YS08 | 0.5 (0.25–0.5) | |||||||||||
| Flucytosine | BMD | NA | 0.06 (0.06) | 8 (100) | ||||||||
| YS08 | 1 (1) | |||||||||||
| C. tropicalis (n = 21) | Fluconazole | BMD | S: ≤ 2, SDD: 4, R: ≥ 8 | 2 (0.5–4) | 16 (76.2) | 14 (66.7) | 7 (33.3) | 14 (66.7) | 7 (33.3) | |||
| YS08 | 0.5 (0.5–1) | 21 (100) | ||||||||||
| Voriconazole | BMD | S: ≤ 0.12, I: 0.25–0.5, R: ≥ 1 | 0.06 (0.03–0.12) | 21 (100) | 21 (100) | 21 (100) | ||||||
| YS08 | 0.12 (0.12) | 21 (100) | ||||||||||
| Micafungin | BMD | S: ≤ 0.25, I: 0.5, R: ≥ 1 | 0.03 (0.015–0.03) | 21 (100) | 21 (100) | 21 (100) | ||||||
| YS08 | 0.06 (0.06) | 21 (100) | ||||||||||
| Caspofungin | BMD | S: ≤ 0.25, I: 0.5, R: ≥ 1 | 0.06 (0.03–0.25) | 21 (100) | 21 (100) | 21 (100) | ||||||
| YS08 | 0.12 (0.12–0.25) | 21 (100) | ||||||||||
| Amphotericin B | BMD | NA | 1 (0.5–2) | 21 (100) | ||||||||
| YS08 | 0.5 (0.25–0.5) | |||||||||||
| Flucytosine | BMD | NA | 0.06 (0.06–0.12) | 21 (100) | ||||||||
| YS08 | 1 (1) | |||||||||||
| C. fabianii (n = 12)c | Fluconazole | BMD | S: ≤ 2, SDD: 4, R: ≥ 8 | 2 (1–4) | 12 (100) | 10 (83.3) | 2 (16.7) | 10 (83.3) | 2 (16.7) | |||
| YS08 | 0.5 (0.5–2) | 12 (100) | ||||||||||
| Voriconazole | BMD | S: ≤ 0.12, I: 0.25–0.5, R: ≥ 1 | 0.06 (0.015–0.25) | 11 (91.7) | 12 (100) | 12 (100) | ||||||
| YS08 | 0.12 (0.12) | 12 (100) | ||||||||||
| Micafungin | BMD | S: ≤ 0.25, I: 0.5, R: ≥ 1 | 0.06 (0.03–0.12) | 12 (100) | 12 (100) | 12 (100) | ||||||
| YS08 | 0.12 (0.06–0.12) | 12 (100) | ||||||||||
| Caspofungin | BMD | S: ≤ 0.25, I: 0.5, R: ≥ 1 | 0.12 (0.03–0.25) | 10 (83.3) | 12 (100) | 12 (100) | ||||||
| YS08 | 0.25 (0.12–0.25 | 12 (100) | ||||||||||
| Amphotericin B | BMD | NA | 1 (0.25–1) | 12 (100) | ||||||||
| YS08 | 0.25 (0.25–0.5) | |||||||||||
| Flucytosine | BMD | NA | 0.12 (0.06–0.25) | 12 (100) | ||||||||
| YS08 | 1 (1) |
EA, essential agreement; S, susceptible; I, intermediate; SDD, susceptible dose-dependent; R, resistant; CA, categorical agreement; VME, very major errors; ME, major errors; MiE minor errors; BMD, CLSI broth microdilution method; YS08, Vitek 2 AST YS08; NA, not available.
bMethod-specific CBP of YS08 voriconazole was used.
Because CBPs for C. lusitaniae, C. orthopsilosis, C. pelliculosa and C. fabianii were not available, the value from C. albicans was used to identify isolates/species with elevated MICs.
In C. glabrata, the CA was 100% for micafungin but only 15% for caspofungin between the BMD and YS08. A major error of 10% (2/20) and minor error of 75% (15/20) for caspofungin were detected. In YS08, 85% (17/20) of isolates were interpreted as caspofungin-intermediate (15 isolates) or -resistant (two isolates), but all showed micafungin susceptibility. Excellent EAs for micafungin (100%), fluconazole (90.0%), and voriconazole (95.0%) were found for C. glabrata. Although fluconazole and caspofungin in C. glabrata are not recommended to be read with YS08, we compared the MIC distributions between the two methods (Fig. 1). For fluconazole, the MICs by BMD were more widely distributed than those by YS08, and for caspofungin, YS08 generated at least a 2-fold higher MIC compared with BMD.
FIG 1.
Comparison of fluconazole (A) and caspofungin (B) MIC distributions in BMD and YS08.
In C. krusei, about 26.7% (4/15) of isolates in BMD and 80% (12/15) of isolates in YS08 showed intermediate susceptibility to caspofungin, but all showed micafungin susceptibility in BMD and YS08. C. parapsilosis showed 5.3% (1/19) of very major errors and 10.5% (2/19) of minor errors for fluconazole and 5.3% of minor errors for caspofungin. In C. tropicalis, 33.3% (7/21) of minor errors and no very major errors or major errors were observed for fluconazole. The EAs between the BMD and YS08 were 76.2%, 100%, 100%, 100%, and 100% for fluconazole, voriconazole, micafungin, caspofungin, and amphotericin B, respectively, in C. tropicalis.
The EAs of flucytosine were 100% for all strains except C. albicans (87.5%, 21/24). Because the minimum MIC value that can be reported by the YS08 for flucytosine is 1 μg/mL, MICs less than 1 μg/mL could not be reported in YS08 (Table S1 in the supplemental material).
We compared the fluconazole MICs and voriconazole MICs in C. glabrata to predict the fluconazole susceptibility using different criteria (Table 2). The CAs between BMD fluconazole MICs and YS08 voriconazole MICs were 90% (18/20) by the method-specific CBP of voriconazole, 80% (16/20) by the current ECV (0.25 μg/mL) of voriconazole, and 85% (17/20) by the previous ECV (0.5 μg/mL) of voriconazole. Only 10% of very major errors were detected by the method-specific CBP. About 5% of very major errors and 15% of major errors were detected by the current ECV criteria, whereas 10% of very major errors and 5% of major errors were found by the previous ECV criteria. However, the CAs between fluconazole ECV (8 μg/mL) and YS08 voriconazole ECV were 65% (13/20) by the current ECV criteria and 60% (12/20) by the previous ECV criteria.
TABLE 2.
Comparison of fluconazole and voriconazole MICs obtained by CLSI broth microdilution method and Vitek 2 AST–YS08 of C. glabrataa
| Results of BMD for fluconazole | Results of YS08 for voriconazole |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Method-specific CBP from YS08 (S: ≤1, I: 2, R: 4 μg/mL) |
Current ECV (0.25 μg/mL) |
Previous ECV(0.5 μg/mL) |
|||||
| S + I | R | WT | Non–WT | WT | Non–WT | ||
| CBP (SDD: ≤ 32, R: ≥ 64 μg/mL) | SDD (n = 15) | 15 | 0 | 12 | 3 | 14 | 1 |
| R (n = 5) | 2 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 3 | |
| CA, n (%) | 18 (90) | 16 (80) | 17 (85) | ||||
| VME, n (%) | 2 (10) | 1 (5) | 2 (10) | ||||
| ME, n (%) | 0 | 3 (15) | 1 (5) | ||||
| ECV (WT: ≤ 8, non-WT : >8 μg/mL) | WT (n = 8) | 8 | 0 | 7 | 1 | 8 | 0 |
| Non–WT (n = 12) | 9 | 3 | 6 | 6 | 8 | 4 | |
| CA, n (%) | 11 (55) | 13 (65) | 12 (60) | ||||
| VME, n (%) | 9 (45) | 6 (30) | 8 (40) | ||||
| ME, n (%) | 0 | 1 (5) | 0 | ||||
S, susceptible; I, intermediate; SDD, susceptible dose-dependent; R, resistant; CA, categorical agreement; VME, very major errors; ME, major errors; WT, wild type; non-WT, non-wild type.
In Table 3, the proportion of WT versus non-WT and CAs were analyzed according to the CLSI ECV criteria. Agreement between voriconazole and micafungin could not be determined in C. albicans because the minimum MIC reported by YS08 was higher than the ECV concentration (ECV: 0.03 for voriconazole and micafungin). Micafungin for C. glabrata could also not be interpreted for the same reason. The CA of C. glabrata for voriconazole was 80% (16/20), of which two non-WT isolates were classified as WT in YS08. In C. tropicalis, the CA for fluconazole was 38.1% and that for voriconazole was 66.7%. Thirteen (61.9%) non-WT isolates for fluconazole and seven (33.3%) for voriconazole were classified in YS08 as WT, respectively.
TABLE 3.
In vitro antifungal susceptibility profiles analyzed by CLSI epidemiological cutoff values except for C. aurisa
| Wild type | Non–wild type | CA | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Candida species | Antifungal agents | Method | Breakpoints (μg/mL) | N, (%) | N, (%) | N, (%) |
| C. albicans (n = 24) | Fluconazole | BMD | ECV: 0.5 | 19 (79.2) | 5 (20.8) | 21 (87.5) |
| YS08 | 18 (75) | 6 (25) | ||||
| Voriconazole | BMD | ECV: 0.03 | 20 (83.3) | 4 (16.7) | ||
| YS08 | NA | NA | ||||
| Micafungin | BMD | ECV: 0.03 | 23 (95.8) | 1 (4.2) | ||
| YS08 | NA | NA | ||||
| Caspofungin | BMD | NA | ||||
| YS08 | ||||||
| Amphotericin B | BMD | ECV: 2 | 23 (95.8) | 1 (4.2) | 23 (95.8) | |
| YS08 | 24 (100) | |||||
| Flucytosine | BMD | ECV: 1 | 16 (66.7) | 8 (33.3) | 22 (91.7) | |
| YS08 | 16 (66.7) | 8 (33.3) | ||||
| C. glabrata (n = 20) | Fluconazole | BMD | ECV: 8 | 8 (40) | 12 (60) | |
| YS08 | ||||||
| Voriconazole | BMD | ECV: 0.25 | 11 (55) | 9 (45) | 16 (80) | |
| YS08 | 13 (65) | 7 (35) | ||||
| Micafungin | BMD | ECV: 0.03 | 19 (95) | 1 (5) | ||
| YS08 | NA | NA | ||||
| Caspofungin | BMD | |||||
| YS08 | ||||||
| Amphotericin B | BMD | ECV: 2 | 20 (100) | 20 (100) | ||
| YS08 | 20 (100) | |||||
| Flucytosine | BMD | ECV: 1 | 20 (100) | 20 (100) | ||
| YS08 | 20 (100) | |||||
| C. guilliermondii (n = 9) | Fluconazole | BMD | ECV: 8 | 8 (88.9) | 1 (11.1) | 8 (88.9) |
| YS08 | 9 (100) | |||||
| Voriconazole | BMD | NA | ||||
| YS08 | ||||||
| Micafungin | BMD | ECV: 2 | 9 (100) | 9 (100) | ||
| YS08 | 9 (100) | |||||
| Caspofungin | BMD | ECV: 2 | 9 (100) | 9 (100) | ||
| YS08 | 9 (100) | |||||
| Amphotericin B | BMD | ECV: 2 | 9 (100) | 9 (100) | ||
| YS08 | 9 (100) | |||||
| Flucytosine | BMD | ECV: 1 | 9 (100) | 9 (100) | ||
| YS08 | 9 (100) | |||||
| C. krusei (n = 15) | Fluconazole | BMD | NA | |||
| YS08 | ||||||
| Voriconazole | BMD | ECV: 0.5 | 15 (100) | 15 (100) | ||
| YS08 | 15 (100) | |||||
| Micafungin | BMD | ECV: 0.25 | 15 (100) | 15 (100) | ||
| YS08 | 15 (100) | |||||
| Caspofungin | BMD | NA | ||||
| YS08 | ||||||
| Amphotericin B | BMD | ECV: 2 | 15 (100) | 14 (93.3) | ||
| YS08 | 14 (93.3) | 1 (6.7) | ||||
| Flucytosine | BMD | ECV: 1 | 15 (100) | 15 (100) | ||
| YS08 | 15 (100) | |||||
| C. lusitaniae (n = 6) | Fluconazole | BMD | ECV: 1 | 6 (100) | 6 (100) | |
| YS08 | 6 (100 | |||||
| Voriconazole | BMD | NA | ||||
| YS08 | ||||||
| Micafungin | BMD | ECV: 0.5 | 6 (100 | 6 (100) | ||
| YS08 | 6 (100 | |||||
| Caspofungin | BMD | ECV: 1 | 6 (100 | 6 (100) | ||
| YS08 | 6 (100 | |||||
| Amphotericin B | BMD | ECV: 2 | 6 (100 | 6 (100) | ||
| YS08 | 6 (100 | |||||
| Flucytosine | BMD | ECV: 1 | 6 (100 | 6 (100) | ||
| YS08 | 6 (100 | |||||
| C. orthopsilosis (n = 5) | Fluconazole | BMD | ECV: 2 | 4 (80) | 1 (20) | 4 (80) |
| YS08 | 5 (100) | |||||
| Voriconazole | BMD | ECV: 0.125 | 4 (80) | 1 (20) | 4 (80) | |
| YS08 | 5 (100) | |||||
| Micafungin | BMD | ECV: 1 | 5 (100) | 5 (100) | ||
| YS08 | 5 (100) | |||||
| Caspofungin | BMD | ECV: 1 | 5 (100) | 5 (100) | ||
| YS08 | 5 (100) | |||||
| Amphotericin B | BMD | ECV: 2 | 5 (100) | 5 (100) | ||
| YS08 | 5 (100) | |||||
| Flucytosine | BMD | ECV: 1 | 5 (100) | 5 (100) | ||
| YS08 | 5 (100) | |||||
| C. parapsilosis (n = 19) | Fluconazole | BMD | ECV: 2 | 17 (89.5) | 2 (10.5) | 16 (84.2) |
| YS08 | 18 (94.7) | 1 (5.3) | ||||
| Voriconazole | BMD | NA | ||||
| YS08 | ||||||
| Micafungin | BMD | ECV: 2 | 19 (100) | 19 (100) | ||
| YS08 | 19 (100) | |||||
| Caspofungin | BMD | ECV: 1 | 18 (94.7) | 1 (5.3) | 18 (94.7) | |
| YS08 | 19 (100) | |||||
| Amphotericin B | BMD | ECV: 1 | 19 (100) | 19 (100) | ||
| YS08 | 19 (100) | |||||
| Flucytosine | BMD | ECV: 1 | 19 (100) | 19 (100) | ||
| YS08 | 19 (100) | |||||
| C. pelliculosa (n = 8)b | Fluconazole | BMD | ECV: 0.5 | 8 (100) | 8 (100) | |
| YS08 | 8 (100) | |||||
| Voriconazole | BMD | ECV: 0.03 | 8 (100) | |||
| YS08 | NA | |||||
| Micafungin | BMD | ECV: 0.03 | 8 (100) | |||
| YS08 | NA | |||||
| Caspofungin | BMD | NA | ||||
| YS08 | ||||||
| Amphotericin B | BMD | ECV: 2 | 8 (100) | 8 (100) | ||
| YS08 | 8 (100) | |||||
| Flucytosine | BMD | ECV: 1 | 8 (100) | 8 (100) | ||
| YS08 | 8 (100) | |||||
| C. tropicalis (n = 21) | Fluconazole | BMD | ECV: 1 | 8 (38.1) | 13 (61.9) | 8 (38.1) |
| YS08 | 21 (100) | |||||
| Voriconazole | BMD | ECV: 0.12 | 14 (66.7) | 7 (33.3) | 14 (66.7) | |
| YS08 | 21 (100) | |||||
| Micafungin | BMD | ECV: 0.06 | 21 (100) | 21 (100) | ||
| YS08 | 21 (100) | |||||
| Caspofungin | BMD | NA | ||||
| YS08 | ||||||
| Amphotericin B | BMD | ECV: 2 | 21 (100) | 21 (100) | ||
| YS08 | 21 (100) | |||||
| Flucytosine | BMD | ECV: 1 | 21 (100) | 21 (100) | ||
| YS08 | 21 (100) | |||||
| C. fabianii (n = 12)b | Fluconazole | BMD | ECV: 0.5 | 0 | 13 (100) | 2 (16.7) |
| YS08 | 10 (83.3) | 2 (16.7) | ||||
| Voriconazole | BMD | ECV: 0.03 | 6 (50.0) | 6 (50.0) | ||
| YS08 | NA | |||||
| Micafungin | BMD | ECV: 0.03 | 5 (41.7) | 7 (58.3) | ||
| YS08 | NA | |||||
| Caspofungin | BMD | NA | ||||
| YS08 | ||||||
| Amphotericin B | BMD | ECV: 2 | 12 (100) | 12(100) | ||
| YS08 | 12(100) | |||||
| Flucytosine | BMD | ECV: 1 | 12(100) | 12(100) | ||
| YS08 | 12(100) |
CA, categorical agreement; BMD, CLSI broth microdilution method; YS08, Vitek 2 AST YS08; NA, not available.
Because ECVs for C. pelliculosa and C. fabianii were not available, the value from C. albicans was used to identify isolates/species with elevated MICs.
Based on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) criteria, C. auris showed 37.8% (17/45) fluconazole resistance by BMD and 22.2% (10/45) by YS08 (Table 4). Only 24.4% (11/45) of isolates showed amphotericin B resistance in BMD. No isolates showed resistance to micafungin or caspofungin. YS08 MIC50 values were within one dilution of BMD, except for flucytosine. YS08 MIC90 values were within two dilutions of BMD, except for micafungin. The EAs between the CLSI and YS08 were 93.3%, 100%, 82.2%, 97.8%, 97.8%, and 97.8% for fluconazole, voriconazole, micafungin, caspofungin, amphotericin B, and flucytosine, respectively.
TABLE 4.
MIC distributions of C. auris (n = 45)a
| Test method | MIC (mg/L) |
|||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Antifungal agents | ≤0.015 | 0.03 | 0.06 | 0.12 | 0.25 | 0.5 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 8 | 16 | 32 | >64 | Median | EA (n, %) | MIC50 | MIC90 | |
| Fluconazole | BMD | 7 | 4 | 7 | 10 | 8 | 9 | 16 | 42 (93.3%) | 16 | 64 | |||||||
| YS08 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 26 | 4 | 10 | 8 | 8 | 32 | |||||||||
| Voriconazole | BMD | 4 | 10 | 12 | 3 | 7 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 0.06 | 45 (100%) | 0.06 | 0.5 | |||||
| YS08 | 29 | 8 | 7 | 1 | 0.12 | 0.12 | 0.5 | |||||||||||
| Micafungin | BMD | 8 | 13 | 13 | 3 | 6 | 2 | 0.12 | 37 (82.2%) | 0.12 | 0.5 | |||||||
| YS08 | 43 | 2 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.06 | |||||||||||||
| Caspofungin | BMD | 3 | 11 | 21 | 8 | 2 | 0.12 | 44 (97.8%) | 0.12 | 0.25 | ||||||||
| YS08 | 20 | 25 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.25 | |||||||||||||
| Amphotericin B | BMD | 7 | 19 | 8 | 11 | 0.5 | 44 (97.8%) | 0.5 | 2.0 | |||||||||
| YS08 | 17 | 28 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | |||||||||||||
| 5–Flucytosine | BMD | 11 | 19 | 13 | 2 | 0.12 | 44 (97.8%) | 0.12 | 0.25 | |||||||||
| YS08 | 44 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||||
BMD, CLSI broth microdilution method; YS08, Vitek 2 AST YS08. Isolate numbers tested are given in parentheses for each species. Species above the vertical line are resistance strains according to the CDC recommendation (fluconazole ≥32 μg/mL; amphotericin B ≥2 μg/mL; caspofungin ≥2 μg/mL; micafungin ≥4 μg/mL). Gray color: Low off–scale MIC value of Vitek 2 AST YS08.
DISCUSSION
In this study, we report six antifungal susceptibility profiles for 184 clinical isolates recovered in Korea. The CBPs were used to define susceptible or resistant isolates. ECVs are useful in distinguishing between WT without resistance mechanisms and non-WT with resistance mechanisms (15). Both criteria can be used to obtain the CA between the two methods (17). Currently, two commercial BMD-based systems, the Vitek 2 system (bioMérieux, France) and the Sensititre YeastOne system (Thermo Scientific, Cleveland, OH, USA), are widely used in clinical microbiological laboratories for antifungal susceptibility testing (17). The previous version of the YS08, YS07, had an FDA-accredited fluconazole formulation that has been validated against C. glabrata. However, the fluconazole formulation was modified and no validation for C. glabrata has been made; therefore, the MIC for the fluconazole of C. glabrata is not recorded in YS08 (18).
The azoles are the most commonly used agents for invasive fungal infections, in particular, fluconazole for the treatment of candidemia (2). Regardless of the Candida species tested, the overall EA and CA of fluconazole between BMD and YS08 ranged from 40%–100% and from 66.7%–100%, respectively. Notably, YS08 classified five fluconazole-resistant isolates as susceptible, representing a very major error. C. albicans, C. parapsilosis, and C. tropicalis showed less than 90% EA and CA for fluconazole MIC. C. albicans showed 79.2% CA and 83.3% EA, and 12.5% of very major errors in fluconazole were detected by YS08. C. parapsilosis showed 84.2% CA and 89.5% EA with 5.3% of very major errors for fluconazole. In C. tropicalis, 66.7% CA, 66.7% EA, and 33.3% of minor errors were detected, and the median MIC (range) for fluconazole was 2 (0.5–4) using the CLSI method and 0.5 (0.5–1) by YS08. These findings led to the conclusion that the fluconazole MIC of YS08 was lower than that of the BMD method. Until recently, only two studies had assessed the clinical performance of YS08 cards compared with Sensititre YeastOne and/or BMD using clinical isolates. Comparing BMD and YS08, Lim et al. found excellent (>90%) EA and CA for fluconazole in C. albicans and C. parapsilosis, but 3.8% of very major errors and 13% of minor errors were observed in C. albicans and C tropicalis (17). However, in another study comparing YS08 and Sensititre YeastOne, Wong et al. revealed poor agreement for fluconazole in C. albicans, with 70% EA and 85% CA (19). The better and more consistent EA and CA results compared with our study might be due to the Candida species tested.
In our study, the EA of C. glabrata against fluconazole and voriconazole was excellent (>90%), but a different MIC distribution for fluconazole was observed between BMD and YS08. The CLSI guideline does not provide the voriconazole MIC value because of insufficient data on the relationship between C. glabrata and voriconazole resistance in clinical outcomes (14). However, the cross-resistance between fluconazole and voriconazole has been reported (20). In our study, the CAs with BMD fluconazole and YS08 voriconazole were 90%, 85%, and 80% using the method-specific CBP, ECV of 0.5 μg/mL, and ECV of 0.25 μg/mL, respectively. Lim et al. reported 97.8% and 82.5% CA between BMD fluconazole MIC and ECV of 0.5 μg/mL and 0.25 μg/mL, respectively (17). Therefore, YS08 voriconazole testing using the CLSI ECV might provide reliable discrimination of fluconazole-resistant C. glabrata.
The CLSI recommends caution in interpretation because antifungal susceptibility tests for caspofungin have high interlaboratory variability (14). Caspofungin can show “eagle effects,” which may cause variability in MICs, as described previously (21). When susceptibility tests are performed under standardized conditions, a surprising echinocandin-specific paradoxical effect can be observed. This effect refers to a phenomenon in which certain strains grow in higher concentrations of echinocandin while being completely susceptible at lower concentrations. This has been observed in several species of Candida and Aspergillus (22).
C. glabrata and C. krusei showed excellent CA for micafungin (100% and 100%, respectively) but poor CA (15% and 46.7%, respectively) for caspofungin. In C. krusei, 26.7% (4/15) of isolates in BMD showed intermediate susceptibility to caspofungin but were susceptible to micafungin. Although the reference method used was the CLSI BMD, caspofungin susceptibility testing in vitro might have contributed to reports of false resistance (23). Therefore, our results of a low EA for caspofungin of C. glabrata and C. krusei might be an unavoidable result. Lim et al. reported that YS08 caspofungin testing appeared unreliable for C. glabrata and that the YS08 micafungin result was more reliable than the caspofungin result (17). Clinical echinocandin resistance is generally associated with amino acid substitutions in specific hot spot regions of FKS1 (all Candida species) and FKS2 (C. glabrata only) (24). CLSI guidelines recommend that if the caspofungin result is susceptible, it can be reported as susceptible, but the possibility of “intermediate” or “resistance” should be confirmed through a micafungin or anidulafungin test or DNA sequence analysis of FKS genes (14). Similar to previous research using the EUCAST method, we found that antifungal susceptibility to other echinocandins or an FKS genetic study should be performed and interpreted comprehensively when interpreting echinocandin resistance (23, 25).
We performed antifungal susceptibility tests on 45 C. auris strains collected in Korea from 2017–2020, and they showed excellent EA except for micafungin (82.2%). A previous study in Korea that used 61 C. auris isolates collected from 1996–2018 showed excellent EAs (>96.7%) and CAs (>93.4%) for fluconazole, amphotericin B, caspofungin, and micafungin between the BMD and the previous version of YS07 (26). However, several surveillance reports have revealed consistently high fluconazole MICs and variable resistance to echinocandins and amphotericin B and the echinocandins in C. auris (12, 27–30). Moreover, multidrug-resistant strains have emerged in the Americas, Africa, Asia, and Europe (27, 28, 30). Higher MIC50 values of YS07 for amphotericin B, caspofungin, and voriconazole were previously reported compared with our results of 8 μg/mL, 0.5 μg/mL, and 1 μg/mL (12). However, there were no cases of echinocandin, amphotericin B, or multidrug-resistant C. auris strains in Korea (26). We observed a lower level of resistance to fluconazole and resistance to amphotericin B at a level of 24.4%. Similar to a previous study (26), our results found that C. auris in Korea had relatively low resistance to antifungal agents compared with those isolated from other regions. Multidrug-resistant strains of C. auris have been mainly identified among the South American clade (clade IV) or South Asia clade (clade I). We did not identify the clade of C. auris in this study, but previous studies have identified that Korean isolates mainly belonged to the East Asia clade (clade II) (26).
As in a previous paper (6), we used ECV/CBP of C. albicans to identify rare yeast species. In fact, cutoffs are species-specific, so it may be unwise to apply them to other species arbitrarily. Since the WT of C. albicans was universally susceptible to the antifungal agents in this study, we posit that a method to evaluate the aberrant MIC distribution based on C. albicans ECV/CBP is a meaningful approach (6).
In conclusion, YS08 showed comparable results with the BMD, including for C. auris. Voriconazole testing of YS08 with the method-specific CBP or by applying an ECV of 0.5 μg/mL may allow for reliable discrimination of fluconazole-resistant C. glabrata. However, interpreting the results of this method using the CBPs/ECVs determined for other methods may lead to erroneous results. Considering the lower YS08 fluconazole MIC results compared with BMD in Candida species and the YS08 caspofungin results in C. glabrata and C. krusei, further improvements for the detection of fluconazole and echinocandin resistance are needed.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Clinical samples.
A total of 200 clinical isolates were submitted to the International St. Mary’s Hospital from nine universities/general hospitals between July 2017 and June 2020 through the Korean Nationwide Fungal Collection Network. Among them, only species with more than five independent isolates were included in the current study (n = 184). The species consisted of C. auris (n = 45), C. albicans (n = 24), C. tropicalis (n = 21), C. glabrata (n = 20), C. parapsilosis (n = 19), C. krusei (n = 15), Cyberlindnera fabianii (C. fabianii) (n = 12), C. guilliermondii (n = 9), C. pelliculosa (n = 8), C. lusitaniae (n = 6), and C. orthopsilosis (n = 5). These isolates were recovered from clinical specimens including the ear (n = 51), blood (n = 45), urine (n = 34), sputum (n = 21), abscess (n = 11), vaginal swab (n = 9), body fluids (n = 6), catheters (n = 4), and wounds (n = 3). Colonies in the primary media were subcultured in Sabouraud Dextrose Agar (SDA) for 24 h at 35°C. The identification of clinical isolates was performed as described in a previous study, using matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry systems (ASTA MicroIDSys System, ASTA Inc., Suwon, South Korea) and/or molecular sequencing (31). After identification, the strains were frozen at −70°C in a glycerol broth (20%) until they were analyzed. This study was approved by the International St. Mary’s Hospital, Catholic Kwandong University College of Medicine in Korea (IS21EISI0040).
Antifungal susceptibility testing and determination of MICs.
The in vitro antifungal susceptibility tests for fluconazole, voriconazole, micafungin, caspofungin, amphotericin B, and flucytosine were performed according to the CLSI M27-ED4 (32) and Vitek 2 system (AST-YS08 card: bioMérieux, France) per the manufacturer’s instructions. For the BMD, the drug concentration ranges were 0.06–32 mg/L (amphotericin B), 0.12–64 mg/L (fluconazole), 0.03–8 mg/L (voriconazole), 0.008–8 mg/L (caspofungin, and micafungin), and 0.06–64 mg/L (fluconazole and flucytosine). The AST-YS08 (YS08) card contained serial dilution ranges of antifungal concentrations for amphotericin B, fluconazole, voriconazole, micafungin, caspofungin, and flucytosine (0.25–16 μg/mL, 0.5–64 μg/mL, 0.12–8 μg/mL, 0.06–8 μg/mL, 0.12–8 μg/mL, and 1–64 μg/mL, respectively. C. parapsilosis (ATCC 22019) and C. krusei (ATCC 6258) were included in each test as control isolates. MICs were determined using the CLSI method, and isolates were classified according to the CBP (14) and ECV (15). Isolates with MICs equal to or less than ECV concentrations were defined as WT isolates, and the rest were considered non-WT isolates (15). As CLSI does not provide CBP for voriconazole on C. glabrata, the voriconazole MICs were determined with the method-specific CBP of YS08 (susceptible: ≤1 μg/mL; intermediate: 2 μg/mL; resistant: ≥4 μg/mL) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Because CBPs for C. lusitaniae, C. orthopsilosis, C. pelliculosa and C. fabianii and ECVs for C. pelliculosa and C. fabianii were not available, the value from C. albicans was used to identify isolates/species with elevated MICs (6). In the case of C. auris, MIC breakpoints recommended by the CDC were used: fluconazole ≥32 μg/mL; amphotericin B ≥2 μg/mL; caspofungin ≥2 μg/mL; micafungin ≥4 μg/mL; amphotericin B and flucytosine: not available (https://www.cdc.gov/fungal/candida-auris/c-auris-antifungal.html). As there was no CLSI CBP or ECV for flucytosine, we applied an ECV of 1 μg/mL as we did in a previous study (6). The YS08 does not provide fluconazole results for C. glabrata, and there is no fluconazole susceptibility category for C. glabrata in revised CLSI M60 (14). We alternately predicted using the method-specific CBP of YS08 voriconazole, the current CLSI M59 ECV (0.25 μg/mL) of voriconazole, and the previous CLSI M27 ECV (0.5 μg/mL) of voriconazole. For discrepant results, YS08 and BMD were repeatedly tested, and the second-run results were accepted as the final results.
Data analysis.
MICs that were high off-scale were converted to the next highest level concentrations, and the low off-scale MICs remained unchanged (33). The EA was defined as the difference between MIC dilutions of less than two. The BMD low off-scale MICs of flucytosine, caspofungin, and micafungin, which were lower than the 2-fold dilution scale of YS08, were rounded up to the next highest 2-log dilution to simplify comparisons. The CA was defined as when the MIC results belonged to the same categories according to the CLSI CBP or/and ECV. Very major errors, major errors, and minor errors were defined with BMD as the reference method. Very major errors were those where the reference method classified an isolate as resistant and YS08 classified it as susceptible. If the reference method classified an isolate as susceptible and YS08 classified it as resistant, it was classified as a major error. Minor errors were defined as when one method classified an isolate as susceptible or resistant and the other assay classified it as intermediate or susceptible depending on the dose (19).
Supplementary Material
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was supported by the Fungi Specialized Pathogen Resource Bank under National Culture Collection for Pathogens (NCCP) of the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency (KDCA) (SPRB-2017-02).
We have no conflicts of interest.
Footnotes
Supplemental material is available online only.
Contributor Information
Gi–Ho Sung, Email: sung97330@gmail.com.
Jayoung Kim, Email: Lmkjy7@gmail.com.
Slavena Vylkova, Septomics Research Center, Friedrich Schiller University and Leibniz Institute for Natural Product Research and Infection Biology—Hans Knöll Institute.
REFERENCES
- 1.Bhattacharya S, Sae-Tia S, Fries BC. 2020. Candidiasis and mechanisms of antifungal resistance. Antibiotics 9:312. doi: 10.3390/antibiotics9060312. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Pappas PG, Kauffman CA, Andes DR, Clancy CJ, Marr KA, Ostrosky-Zeichner L, Reboli AC, Schuster MG, Vazquez JA, Walsh TJ, Zaoutis TE, Sobel JD. 2016. Clinical practice guideline for the management of candidiasis: 2016 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis 62:e1–e50. doi: 10.1093/cid/civ933. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Kullberg BJ, Arendrup MC. 2015. Invasive candidiasis. N Engl J Med 373:1445–1456. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra1315399. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Marra AR, Camargo LF, Pignatari AC, Sukiennik T, Behar PR, Medeiros EA, Ribeiro J, Girão E, Correa L, Guerra C, Brites C, Pereira CA, Carneiro I, Reis M, de Souza MA, Tranchesi R, Barata CU, Edmond MB, Brazilian SCOPE Study Group. 2011. Nosocomial bloodstream infections in Brazilian hospitals: analysis of 2,563 cases from a prospective nationwide surveillance study. J Clin Microbiol 49:1866–1871. doi: 10.1128/JCM.00376-11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Arendrup MC. 2010. Epidemiology of invasive candidiasis. Curr Opin Crit Care 16:445–452. doi: 10.1097/MCC.0b013e32833e84d2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Borman AM, Muller J, Walsh-Quantick J, Szekely A, Patterson Z, Palmer MD, Fraser M, Johnson EM. 2020. MIC distributions for amphotericin B, fluconazole, itraconazole, voriconazole, flucytosine and anidulafungin and 35 uncommon pathogenic yeast species from the UK determined using the CLSI broth microdilution method. J Antimicrob Chemother 75:1194–1205. doi: 10.1093/jac/dkz568. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Ko JH, Jung DS, Lee JY, Kim HA, Ryu SY, Jung SI, Joo EJ, Cheon S, Kim YS, Kim SW, Cho SY, Kang CI, Chung DR, Lee NY, Peck KR. 2019. Changing epidemiology of non-albicans candidemia in Korea. J Infect Chemother 25:388–391. doi: 10.1016/j.jiac.2018.09.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Arastehfar A, Fang W, Al-Hatmi AMS, Afsarian MH, Daneshnia F, Bakhtiari M, Sadati SK, Badali H, Khodavaisy S, Hagen F, Liao W, Pan W, Zomorodian K, Boekhout T. 2019. Unequivocal identification of an underestimated opportunistic yeast species, Cyberlindnera fabianii, and its close relatives using a dual-function PCR and literature review of published cases. Med Mycol 57:833–840. doi: 10.1093/mmy/myy148. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Lee Y, Puumala E, Robbins N, Cowen LE. 2021. Antifungal drug resistance: molecular mechanisms in Candida albicans and beyond. Chem Rev 121:3390–3411. doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.0c00199. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Cretella D, Barber KE, King ST, Stover KR. 2016. Comparison of susceptibility patterns using commercially available susceptibility testing methods performed on prevalent Candida spp. J Med Microbiol 65:1445–1451. doi: 10.1099/jmm.0.000383. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Arastehfar A, Carvalho A, Nguyen MH, Hedayati MT, Netea MG, Perlin DS, Hoenigl M. 2020. COVID-19-associated candidiasis (CAC): an underestimated complication in the absence of immunological predispositions? J Fungi (Basel) 6:211. doi: 10.3390/jof6040211. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Kathuria S, Singh PK, Sharma C, Prakash A, Masih A, Kumar A, Meis JF, Chowdhary A. 2015. Multidrug-resistant Candida auris misidentified as Candida haemulonii: characterization by matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry and DNA sequencing and its antifungal susceptibility profile variability by Vitek 2, CLSI broth microdilution, and Etest method. J Clin Microbiol 53:1823–1830. doi: 10.1128/JCM.00367-15. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Siqueira RA, Doi AM, de Petrus Crossara PP, Koga PCM, Marques AG, Nunes FG, Pasternak J, Martino MDV. 2018. Evaluation of two commercial methods for the susceptibility testing of Candida species: Vitek 2 and Sensititre YeastOne. Rev Iberoam Micol 35:83–87. doi: 10.1016/j.riam.2017.11.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.CLSI. 2020. Performance standards for antifungal susceptibility testing of yeasts, 2nd ed. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, Wayne, PA, USA. [Google Scholar]
- 15.CLSI. 2020. Epidemiological cutoff values for antifungal susceptibility testing, 3rd ed. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, Wayne, PA, USA. [Google Scholar]
- 16.Peterson JF, Pfaller MA, Diekema DJ, Rinaldi MG, Riebe KM, Ledeboer NA. 2011. Multicenter comparison of the Vitek 2 antifungal susceptibility test with the CLSI broth microdilution reference method for testing caspofungin, micafungin, and posaconazole against Candida spp. J Clin Microbiol 49:1765–1771. doi: 10.1128/JCM.02517-10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Lim HJ, Shin JH, Kim MN, Yong D, Byun SA, Choi MJ, Lee SY, Won EJ, Kee SJ, Kim SH, Shin MG. 2020. Evaluation of two commercial broth microdilution methods using different interpretive criteria for the detection of molecular mechanisms of acquired azole and echinocandin resistance in four common Candida species. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 64:e00740-20. doi: 10.1128/AAC.00740-20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Korem M, Geffen Y, Amit S. 2020. Don't mess with the machine—evaluation of fluconazole susceptibility testing for Candida glabrata using the new VITEK2 AST-YS08 card following species modification. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 96:114896. doi: 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2019.114896. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Wong KY, Gardam D, Boan P. 2019. Comparison of Vitek 2 YS08 with Sensititre YeastOne for Candida susceptibility testing. Pathology 51:668–669. doi: 10.1016/j.pathol.2019.05.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Panackal AA, Gribskov JL, Staab JF, Kirby KA, Rinaldi M, Marr KA. 2006. Clinical significance of azole antifungal drug cross-resistance in Candida glabrata. J Clin Microbiol 44:1740–1743. doi: 10.1128/JCM.44.5.1740-1743.2006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Clemons KV, Espiritu M, Parmar R, Stevens DA. 2006. Assessment of the paradoxical effect of caspofungin in therapy of candidiasis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 50:1293–1297. doi: 10.1128/AAC.50.4.1293-1297.2006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Wagener J, Loiko V. 2017. Recent Insights into the paradoxical effect of echinocandins. J Fungi (Basel) 4:5. doi: 10.3390/jof4010005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Espinel-Ingroff A, Arendrup MC, Pfaller MA, Bonfietti LX, Bustamante B, Canton E, Chryssanthou E, Cuenca-Estrella M, Dannaoui E, Fothergill A, Fuller J, Gaustad P, Gonzalez GM, Guarro J, Lass-Flörl C, Lockhart SR, Meis JF, Moore CB, Ostrosky-Zeichner L, Pelaez T, Pukinskas SR, St-Germain G, Szeszs MW, Turnidge J. 2013. Interlaboratory variability of caspofungin MICs for Candida spp. using CLSI and EUCAST methods: should the clinical laboratory be testing this agent? Antimicrob Agents Chemother 57:5836–5842. doi: 10.1128/AAC.01519-13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Perlin DS. 2015. Mechanisms of echinocandin antifungal drug resistance. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1354:1–11. doi: 10.1111/nyas.12831. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Shields RK, Nguyen MH, Press EG, Updike CL, Clancy CJ. 2013. Anidulafungin and micafungin MIC breakpoints are superior to that of caspofungin for identifying FKS mutant Candida glabrata strains and echinocandin resistance. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 57:6361–6365. doi: 10.1128/AAC.01451-13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Kwon YJ, Shin JH, Byun SA, Choi MJ, Won EJ, Lee D, Lee SY, Chun S, Lee JH, Choi HJ, Kee SJ, Kim SH, Shin MG. 2019. Candida auris clinical isolates from South Korea: identification, antifungal susceptibility, and genotyping. J Clin Microbiol 57:e01624-18. doi: 10.1128/JCM.01624-18. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Lockhart SR, Etienne KA, Vallabhaneni S, Farooqi J, Chowdhary A, Govender NP, Colombo AL, Calvo B, Cuomo CA, Desjardins CA, Berkow EL, Castanheira M, Magobo RE, Jabeen K, Asghar RJ, Meis JF, Jackson B, Chiller T, Litvintseva AP. 2017. Simultaneous emergence of multidrug-resistant Candida auris on 3 continents confirmed by whole-genome sequencing and epidemiological analyses. Clin Infect Dis 64:134–140. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciw691. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Ben-Ami R, Berman J, Novikov A, Bash E, Shachor-Meyouhas Y, Zakin S, Maor Y, Tarabia J, Schechner V, Adler A, Finn T. 2017. Multidrug-resistant Candida haemulonii and C. auris, Tel Aviv, Israel. Emerg Infect Dis 23:195–203. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Chowdhary A, Prakash A, Sharma C, Kordalewska M, Kumar A, Sarma S, Tarai B, Singh A, Upadhyaya G, Upadhyay S, Yadav P, Singh PK, Khillan V, Sachdeva N, Perlin DS, Meis JF. 2018. A multicentre study of antifungal susceptibility patterns among 350 Candida auris isolates (2009–17) in India: role of the ERG11 and FKS1 genes in azole and echinocandin resistance. J Antimicrob Chemother 73:891–899. doi: 10.1093/jac/dkx480. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Chowdhary A, Anil Kumar V, Sharma C, Prakash A, Agarwal K, Babu R, Dinesh KR, Karim S, Singh SK, Hagen F, Meis JF. 2014. Multidrug-resistant endemic clonal strain of Candida auris in India. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 33:919–926. doi: 10.1007/s10096-013-2027-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Lee H, Park JH, Oh J, Cho S, Koo J, Park IC, Kim J, Park S, Choi JS, Shin SY, Sung GH, Kim J. 2019. Evaluation of a new matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry system for the identification of yeast isolation. J Clin Lab Anal 33:e22685. doi: 10.1002/jcla.22685. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.CLSI. 2017. Reference method for broth dilution antifungal susceptibility testing of yeasts, 4th ed. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, Wayne, PA, USA. [Google Scholar]
- 33.Pfaller MA, Diekema DJ, Procop GW, Rinaldi MG. 2007. Multicenter comparison of the VITEK 2 yeast susceptibility test with the CLSI broth microdilution reference method for testing fluconazole against Candida spp. J Clin Microbiol 45:796–802. doi: 10.1128/JCM.01986-06. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Supplemental material. Download SPECTRUM01253-21_Supp_1_seq5.pdf, PDF file, 0.2 MB (227KB, pdf)