EditorialAntifungal susceptibility testing in Australasian clinical laboratories: we must improve our performance
Section snippets
Conflicts of interest and sources of funding
The authors state that there are no conflicts of interest to disclose.
References (14)
- et al.
European committee on antimicrobial susceptibility testing (EUCAST) technical notes on antimicrobial susceptibility testing
Clin Microbiol Infect
(2006) - et al.
Update from the laboratory: clinical identification and susceptibility testing of fungi and trends in antifungal resistance
Infect Dis Clin North Am
(2016) - et al.
Comparison of the Vitek 2 yeast susceptibility system with CLSI microdilution for antifungal susceptibility testing of fluconazole and voriconazole against Candida spp., using new clinical breakpoints and epidemiological cutoff values
Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis
(2013) - et al.
Antifungal susceptibility testing
Clin Microbiol Rev
(1993) Reference method for broth dilution antifungal susceptibility testing of yeasts: Fourth edition, M27-A4
(2017)Reference method for broth dilution antifungal susceptibility testing of filamentous Fungi: Third edition, M38-A3
(2017)- et al.
EUCAST Definitive Document EDef 7.3.1: method for the determination of broth dilution MICs of antifungal agents for fermentative yeasts
(Dec 2015)
Cited by (6)
Evaluation of a custom Sensititre YeastOne plate for susceptibility testing of isavuconazole and other antifungals against clinically relevant yeast and mould species in three Australian diagnostic mycology laboratories
2022, PathologyCitation Excerpt :A limitation of the present study is that we were unable to provide comparisons with the CLSI BMD reference methods. Almost all diagnostic laboratories, including reference laboratories in Australia, rely upon commercial AFST methods, with the SYO YO10 panel the most highly utilised,8 as there is insufficient capacity and resources for the reference AFST methodologies. However, numerous studies have demonstrated high reproducibility, EA and CA between the YO10 plate and the CLSI reference standards for yeast and moulds.18,30–36
Antifungal susceptibility of clinical mould isolates in New Zealand, 2001–2019
2021, PathologyCitation Excerpt :While not currently used locally for mould susceptibility testing this is likely to change, as it has recently for bacterial susceptibility testing. However, there are important method differences between CLSI and EUCAST and results generated by one method must not be interpreted with criteria used by the other.31 Lastly, we have not had any molecular testing performed for acquired mechanisms of azole resistance.
Antifungal Susceptibility Testing and Identification
2021, Infectious Disease Clinics of North AmericaCitation Excerpt :However, EUCAST have established CBPs for the 5 most common Aspergillus species for amphotericin B and several triazoles, and for Cryptococcus neoformans and amphotericin B.18 Currently approved CBPs for both EUCAST and CLSI are detailed in Table 3. Despite gaps in the coverage of CBPs, it is essential that the interpretative criteria are not mixed and matched between the 2 methods.47 Caspofungin susceptibility testing in vitro has been associated with significant interlaboratory variability, which can lead to falsely high rates of intermediate or resistant classification.
Updating of in vitro antifungal susceptibility tests
2019, Enfermedades Infecciosas y Microbiologia ClinicaDisseminated Rasamsonia argillacea infection in a dog
2023, New Zealand Veterinary Journal