| Literature DB >> 25489741 |
Evgeny A Idelevich1, Camilla M Grunewald1, Jörg Wüllenweber1, Karsten Becker1.
Abstract
Fungaemia is associated with high mortality rates and early appropriate antifungal therapy is essential for patient management. However, classical diagnostic workflow takes up to several days due to the slow growth of yeasts. Therefore, an approach for direct species identification and direct antifungal susceptibility testing (AFST) without prior time-consuming sub-culturing of yeasts from positive blood cultures (BCs) is urgently needed. Yeast cell pellets prepared using Sepsityper kit were used for direct identification by MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry (MS) and for direct inoculation of Vitek 2 AST-YS07 card for AFST. For comparison, MALDI-TOF MS and Vitek 2 testing were performed from yeast subculture. A total of twenty four positive BCs including twelve C. glabrata, nine C. albicans, two C. dubliniensis and one C. krusei isolate were processed. Applying modified thresholds for species identification (score ≥ 1.5 with two identical consecutive propositions), 62.5% of BCs were identified by direct MALDI-TOF MS. AFST results were generated for 72.7% of BCs directly tested by Vitek 2 and for 100% of standardized suspensions from 24 h cultures. Thus, AFST comparison was possible for 70 isolate-antifungal combinations. Essential agreement (minimum inhibitory concentration difference ≤ 1 double dilution step) was 88.6%. Very major errors (VMEs) (false-susceptibility), major errors (false-resistance) and minor errors (false categorization involving intermediate result) amounted to 33.3% (of resistant isolates), 1.9% (of susceptible isolates) and 1.4% providing 90.0% categorical agreement. All VMEs were due to fluconazole or voriconazole. This direct method saved on average 23.5 h for identification and 15.1 h for AFST, compared to routine procedures. However, performance for azole susceptibility testing was suboptimal and testing from subculture remains indispensable to validate the direct finding.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25489741 PMCID: PMC4260948 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0114834
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Candida species identification rates by using direct MALDI-TOF MS method, n = 24.
| Species | Total number ofsamples | Number of identifiedsamples | Identificationrate, % |
|
| 12 | 7 | 58.3 |
|
| 9 | 6 | 66.7 |
|
| 2 | 1 | – |
|
| 1 | 1 | – |
|
|
|
|
|
Identification rate was not calculated due to the low number of isolates.
Results of antifungal susceptibility testing by direct inoculation method compared to standard Vitek 2 method from 24 h sub-cultures.
| Antifungal/species (No. of isolates) | Direct method | Standard method | ||||||||
| Category | MIC | Category | MIC | |||||||
| S | I | R | 50% | 90% | S | I | R | 50% | 90% | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | ||||
|
| 7 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 0 | ||||
|
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 | ||||
|
| 0 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 7 | ||||
|
| 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 2 | ||||
|
| 4 | 0 | 3 | 5 | 0 | 2 | ||||
|
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 8 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 0 | ||||
|
| 7 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 0 | ||||
|
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | ||||
|
| 7 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 0 | ||||
|
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | ||||
MIC, minimum inhibitory concentration. MIC50 and MIC90 were not calculated for single species due to the low number of isolates.
intrinsic resistant.
Performance of direct antifungal susceptibility testing compared to the standard method.
| Antifungal/species | No. of isolate-antifungalcombinations | Very majorerrors | Majorerrors | Minorerrors | Categoricalagreement | Essentialagreement |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 | |||||
|
| 7 | |||||
|
| 1 | |||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 | 3 | ||||
|
| 7 | |||||
|
| 1 | |||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 | 2 | ||||
|
| 7 | 1 | ||||
|
| 1 | |||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 8 | |||||
|
| 7 | |||||
|
| 1 | |||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 | |||||
|
| 7 | |||||
|
| 1 | 1 | ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Error rates are calculated according to ISO [22] and FDA [23] guidances. Very major errors (%) - number of false susceptible results of direct AFST divided by the number of isolates tested resistant by the standard method, major errors (%) - number of false resistant results of direct AFST divided by the number of susceptible isolates as determined by the standard method, minor errors (%) - number of false categorizations involving intermediate result divided by the total number of tested isolates.