Ana Espinel-Ingroff1. 1. Medical College of Virginia Commonwealth, Richmond, Virginia 23298-0049, USA. avingrof@hsc.vcu.edu
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: As new antifungal agents were introduced for the treatment of fungal infections, reliable methods were developed or adapted for the in-vitro susceptibility testing of yeasts and moulds (filamentous fungi). This paper reviews the available methods for antifungal susceptibility testing of moulds as well as the scant data that have been published since 2002 regarding the clinical implications of in-vitro testing. RECENT FINDINGS: Caspofungin and voriconazole have been recently licensed for treatment of certain mould infections that are usually refractory to treatment with established agents. The introduction of new agents and the frequent reports of mould resistance have underscored the role of the laboratory in patient management and initiated the study of mechanisms of resistance in moulds. In 2002, the US National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards M38-P document moved to the approved level of development (M38-A document). Although combination therapy and synergistic studies with the new agents have been documented, very little information is available on in-vitro/in-vivo correlations for moulds. SUMMARY: The ultimate goal of in-vitro testing is the prediction of the clinical outcome of therapy. The use of National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards procedures has led to increased interlaboratory agreement of minimum inhibitory concentrations. Reproducibility of minimum inhibitory concentrations for yeasts has facilitated the establishment of interpretive breakpoints for fluconazole and itraconazole versus Candida spp., but breakpoints are not available for any antifungal against mould species. Although some insights have been documented regarding the potential utility of in-vitro testing for moulds, further documentation of in-vitro versus in-vivo data is needed.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: As new antifungal agents were introduced for the treatment of fungal infections, reliable methods were developed or adapted for the in-vitro susceptibility testing of yeasts and moulds (filamentous fungi). This paper reviews the available methods for antifungal susceptibility testing of moulds as well as the scant data that have been published since 2002 regarding the clinical implications of in-vitro testing. RECENT FINDINGS:Caspofungin and voriconazole have been recently licensed for treatment of certain mould infections that are usually refractory to treatment with established agents. The introduction of new agents and the frequent reports of mould resistance have underscored the role of the laboratory in patient management and initiated the study of mechanisms of resistance in moulds. In 2002, the US National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards M38-P document moved to the approved level of development (M38-A document). Although combination therapy and synergistic studies with the new agents have been documented, very little information is available on in-vitro/in-vivo correlations for moulds. SUMMARY: The ultimate goal of in-vitro testing is the prediction of the clinical outcome of therapy. The use of National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards procedures has led to increased interlaboratory agreement of minimum inhibitory concentrations. Reproducibility of minimum inhibitory concentrations for yeasts has facilitated the establishment of interpretive breakpoints for fluconazole and itraconazole versus Candida spp., but breakpoints are not available for any antifungal against mould species. Although some insights have been documented regarding the potential utility of in-vitro testing for moulds, further documentation of in-vitro versus in-vivo data is needed.
Authors: Ashraf S Ibrahim; Joel C Bowman; Valentina Avanessian; Keturah Brown; Brad Spellberg; John E Edwards; Cameron M Douglas Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 5.191