Table 4.
Minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC) or effective concentrations (MEC) of M. romeroi in mg/L for different antifungals *.
| KTC (MIC) |
TRB (MIC) |
FLC (MIC) |
ISC (MIC) |
ITC (MIC) |
POS (MIC) |
VRC (MIC) |
CAS (MEC) |
ANF (MEC) |
MFG (MEC) |
AMB (MIC) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PV. Venugopal et al., 1993 [12] |
0.5 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Cerar et al., 2009 [13] | - | - | - | - | - | 0.25 MFC 1.0 |
>8 MFC > 8 |
- | - | - | - |
| Badali et al., 2010 [29] | - | - | >64 | 0.125 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 4.0 | 8.0 | 1.0 | - | 4.0 |
| Khan et al., 2011 [32] | - | - | >256 | - | 3.0 | 0.064 | 0.008 | 6.0 | 0.5 | - | 8.0 |
| Abdolrasouli et al., 2016 [36] | - | 0.125 | >64 | - | 0.5 | 0.25 | 0.5 | 4.0 | - | - | 0.25 |
| Guégan et al., 2016 [2] | - | 0.06 | - | - | 4 | 2 | 0.125 | 1 | - | 4 | 0.25 |
| - | 0.25 | - | - | 8 | 4 | 0.5 | 1 | - | 2 | 0.5 | |
| - | 0.06 | - | - | 4 | 8 | 0.5 | 0.25 | - | 8 | 1 | |
| - | 2.79 | 128 | - | 5.77 | 1.80 | 1.81 | 4.6 | - | 4.6 | 2.78 | |
| Los-Arcos et al., 2019 [19] | - | 0.25 | - | - | 8 | 0.5 | 2.0 | 1.0 | - | - | 0.25 |
| - | >16 | - | - | >8 | 2.0 | 0.5 | >16 | - | - | 8.0 | |
| Lieberman et al., 2019 [1] | - | - | - | - | >16 | 0.5 | 2.0 | - | - | - | - |
| Current case | - | - | - | 0.012 | >32 | 0.047 | 0.016 | >32 | - | - | 4 |
| Median | 0.5 | 0.25 | 96 | 0.0685 | 5.77 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 4.3 | 0.75 | 4.3 | 1.89 |
Abbreviations: AMB: Amphotericin B, ANF: Anidulafungin, CAS: Caspofungin, FLC: Fluconazole, ISC: Isavuconazole, ITC: Itraconazole, KTC: Ketoconazole, MEC: minimum effective concentration, MFC: minimum fungicidal concentration, MFG: Micafungin, POS: Posaconazole, TRB: Terbinafine, VRC: Voriconazole, -: in vitro susceptibility test not performed for this molecule. * The MIC is recorded for azoles and terbinafine, whereas the MEC is reserved for the echinocandins–caspofungin, micafungin, and anidulafungin. MFC refers to the minimum concentration that reduces the viability of the fungal inoculation by ≥99.9%.