Literature DB >> 27799223

Evaluation of MIC Strip Isavuconazole Test for Susceptibility Testing of Wild-Type and Non-Wild-Type Aspergillus fumigatus Isolates.

Maiken Cavling Arendrup1,2,3, Paul Verweij4, Henrik Vedel Nielsen5.   

Abstract

We evaluated the MIC Strip Isavuconazole test against EUCAST E.Def 9.3 by using 40 wild-type and 39 CYP51A mutant Aspergillus fumigatus strains. The strip full inhibition endpoint (FIE) and 80% growth inhibition endpoint were determined by two independent readers, reader 1 (R1) and R2. The essential (within ±0, ±1, and ±2 twofold dilutions) and categorical agreements were best with the FIE (for R1/R2, 42%/41%, 75%/73%, and 90%/89% for essential agreement, and 91.1%/92.4% categorical agreement, with 6.3/8.9% very major errors and 0/1.3% major errors, respectively). The MIC Strip Isavuconazole test with the FIE appears to be useful.
Copyright © 2016 Arendrup et al.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Aspergillus fumigatus; Cyp51A mutants; EUCAST; MIC; antifungal susceptibility testing; gradient strip; isavuconazole; wild type

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27799223      PMCID: PMC5192160          DOI: 10.1128/AAC.01659-16

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother        ISSN: 0066-4804            Impact factor:   5.191


TEXT

Antifungal susceptibility testing of Aspergillus fumigatus has become increasingly important with the emergence of azole resistance (1–6). EUCAST has set clinical breakpoints for isavuconazole and Aspergillus (7). For A. fumigatus, the clinical breakpoint is 1 mg/liter, one step lower than the epidemiological cutoff value (ECOFF) (2 mg/liter) because the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic breakpoint is 1 mg/liter and the MIC ranges for wild-type and resistant mutants overlap. Hence an MIC of 2 mg/liter may represent wild-type isolates as well as isolates with clinically relevant resistance mechanisms (1–3, 5, 8–15). In clinical practice, the adoption of a restrictive clinical breakpoint for interpretation of MICs generated by commercial tests may create a higher risk of misclassification unless the susceptibility test is very well standardized against the reference method and associated with low reader-to-reader and interlaboratory variations. An isavuconazole gradient strip (Etest; AB Biodisk, Solna, Sweden) was previously evaluated but is no longer available (16, 17). Thus, we evaluated the only commercially available isavuconazole susceptibility test, the MIC Strip Isavuconazole test (Liofilchem, Roseto degli Abruzzi, TE, Italy). Forty wild-type and 39 CYP51A mutant A. fumigatus isolates with hot-spot alterations involving G54 (n = 10), M220 (n = 10), TR34/L98H (n = 9), and TR46/Y121F T289A (n = 10) were included. For the strip test (Liofilchem, Roseto degli Abruzzi, TE, Italy) a McFarland 0.5 conidial suspension and RPMI 1640 2% glucose agar (SSI Diagnostica, Hillerød, Denmark) were used. Strip MICs were read by two independent technicians (reader 1 [R1] and R2) blind to the CYP51A genotype at 24 and 48 h of incubation, with an 80% inhibition endpoint (80% IE) and a full inhibition endpoint (FIE). EUCAST testing was performed as previously recommended (7, 18). Four control strains were included (see Table S1 in the supplemental material) (7). The percent essential agreement between the tests was calculated. Isolates for which the MICs were above scale by both methods (EUCAST, >16 mg/liter; strip test, >32 mg/liter) were considered in agreement within ±0 twofold dilution. The categorical agreement between the methods was calculated as the percentage of isolates classified equally by both methods. Very major errors (VMEs) were defined as isolate categorization as resistant (R) by EUCAST but susceptible (S) by the strip test, and major errors (MEs) were defined as isolate categorization as S by the EUCAST method but R by the strip test. Most isavuconazole strip MICs were above the recommended ranges for the two control Candida strains (Table S1). In contrast, the strip MICs for A. fumigatus ATCC 204305 and A. flavus CM1813 were within ±1 twofold dilution of the EUCAST MICs, suggesting better agreement for the Aspergillus strains and best when using the FIE for Aspergillus. Nine isolates (11.4%) failed to grow sufficiently well to allow strip MIC reading on day 1, when, in general, zones were fuzzy and difficult to read. Day 2 MICs were lower with the 80% IE than with the FIE (Fig. 1). This was particularly evident for isolates harboring TR34/L98H alterations, for which the modal 80% IE MICs were 2 and 4 mg/liter, respectively but >32 mg/liter for both readers with the FIE. The essential agreement between the strip MICs from the two readers was highest, 97% at ±1 twofold dilution and 100% at ±2 twofold dilutions, when using the FIE (Table 1).
FIG 1

Isavuconazole strip MICs for wild-type and CYP51A mutant A. fumigatus isolates determined at 80% inhibition (left side) and full inhibition endpoints (right side) and by two independent readers, R1 (top) and R2 (bottom).

TABLE 1

Essential agreement between R1 and R2 of MIC Strip Isavuconazole test and between strip and EUCAST MICs

CYP51A profilenStrip MIC agreement (%)a between R1 and R2
Agreement (%)a between Strip MIC and EUCAST MIC
R1 vs R2, FIE
R1 vs R2, 80% IE
R1 FIE vs EUCAST
R2 FIE vs EUCAST
R1 80% IE vs EUCAST
R2 80% IE vs EUCAST
±0b±1±2±0±1±2±0±1±2±0±1±2±0±1±2±0±1±2
Wild type405595100839898388098287895186388156388
G54 alterations
    G54E41001001007510010075100100751001000100100075100
    G54R11001001001001001000010000100000000
    G54V10100100100100100010010010010010001001000100100
    G54W310010010067100100331001003310010067100100100100100
    G54R N248K10100100100100100010010010010010001001000100100
M220 alterations
    M220K333100100671001000100100671001000100100067100
    M220T25010010050100100100100100501001000501005050100
    M220V2501001005050100050100505010005010005050
    M220I25010010050501005050500505005010050100100
    M220I V101F11001001000100100001000010000000100
Mutants with TRc
    TR34/L98H910010010033788911113311113311221003367100
    TR46/Y121F T289A10100100100100100100100100100100100100100100100100100100
All isolates796897100759497427590417389256691307091

Percent essential agreement within ±0, ±1, and ±2 twofold dilutions, respectively. MICs were read after 2 days of incubation. Strip MICs were read by using the FIE or 80% IE endpoint.

Number of twofold dilutions.

TR, tandem repeat in the CYP51A promoter region.

Isavuconazole strip MICs for wild-type and CYP51A mutant A. fumigatus isolates determined at 80% inhibition (left side) and full inhibition endpoints (right side) and by two independent readers, R1 (top) and R2 (bottom). Essential agreement between R1 and R2 of MIC Strip Isavuconazole test and between strip and EUCAST MICs Percent essential agreement within ±0, ±1, and ±2 twofold dilutions, respectively. MICs were read after 2 days of incubation. Strip MICs were read by using the FIE or 80% IE endpoint. Number of twofold dilutions. TR, tandem repeat in the CYP51A promoter region. Isavuconazole MICs for isolates with wild-type CYP51A or single alterations at the G54 codon were all below the EUCAST ECOFF for the strip test with the FIE, as well as for EUCAST (Table 2). Likewise, the MICs for isolates harboring M220I alterations or TR34/L98H or TR46/Y121F T289A were all above the clinical breakpoint for both methods when the FIE was used for the strip test. However, the MICs for TR34/L98H isolates were higher when determined by the strip test (MIC range, >32 mg/liter) than when determined by EUCAST (MIC50 of 8 mg/liter; range, 4 to >16 mg/liter) (Table 2). The overall essential agreement between strip MICs and EUCAST MICs within ±0, ±1, and ±2 twofold dilutions was best when using the FIE (R1/R2: 42/41, 75/73, and 90/89%) than when using the 80% IE (R1/R2: 25/30, 66/70, and 91/91%). At least 95% essential agreement between the strip test and EUCAST within ±2 twofold dilutions was seen for all CYP51A genotypes except those harboring the TR34/L98H mechanism or the M220I alteration. Similarly, the categorical agreement was better for the FIE reading of the strip test (91.1 to 92.4% with 6.3 to 8.9% VMEs and 0 to 1.3% MEs) than for the 80% IE (89.9% with 10.1% VMEs and 0% MEs for both readers). VMEs included four isolates with the wild-type CYP51A genotype and one to four isolates harboring M220V, M220I, or G54R N248K alterations, respectively.
TABLE 2

Isavuconazole susceptibility of wild-type and CYP51A mutant A. fumigatus isolates determined by strip test and EUCAST E.Def 9.3

CYP51A profileaNo. of isolatesEUCAST E.Def 9.3
Gradient strip R1
Gradient strip R2
MIC50bMIC range% >ECOFFc% RMIC50bMIC range% >ECOFF% RMIC50bMIC range% >ECOFF% R
Wild type400.50.25–20100.50.125–1000.50.125–203
G54 alterations
    G54E40.125–0.25000.125–0.25000.125–0.2500
    G54R10.5000.125000.12500
    G54V10.25000.125000.2500
    G54W30.125–0.25000.25–0.5000.25–0.500
    G54R N248K12010010020100
M220alterations
    M220K31–433330.5–20330.5–13333
    M220T20.5–1000.5–1000.500
    M220V22–4501001001–2050
    M220I22–8501002 to >32501004 to >32100100
    M220I V101F116100100>32100100>32100100
Mutants with TRd
    TR34/L98H94 to >16100100>32100100>32100100
    TR46/Y121F T289A10>16>16100100>32>32100100>32>32100100
All isolates7910.125 to >1629380.50.125 to >3227290.50.125 to >322933

Plates were read by two independent readers using the FIE endpoint after 2 days of incubation.

MIC50s (mg/liter) are presented only for genotypes represented by ≥10 isolates.

Percentage of isolates with MICs above the EUCAST isavuconazole ECOFF (2 mg/liter) and clinical (1 mg/liter) breakpoints.

TR, tandem repeat in the CYP51A promoter region.

Isavuconazole susceptibility of wild-type and CYP51A mutant A. fumigatus isolates determined by strip test and EUCAST E.Def 9.3 Plates were read by two independent readers using the FIE endpoint after 2 days of incubation. MIC50s (mg/liter) are presented only for genotypes represented by ≥10 isolates. Percentage of isolates with MICs above the EUCAST isavuconazole ECOFF (2 mg/liter) and clinical (1 mg/liter) breakpoints. TR, tandem repeat in the CYP51A promoter region. The MIC Strip Isavuconazole test manufacturer recommends an 80% IE reading, but in this study, higher interreader essential agreement, better separation between wild-type and resistant strains, and greater essential and categorical agreement compared to EUCAST results were achieved with the FIE. Thus, the FIE criterion was found to be superior although the MICs for the recommended Candida control strains were out of range (7). When using the FIE, the essential agreements with EUCAST within ±1 and ±2 twofold dilutions were 73 to 75% and 89 to 90% and thus better than previously found for the isavuconazole Etest versus the CLSI method, even though challenged here with a strain collection including a significant number of non-wild-type isolates (16). The categorical agreement was >91% when interpreting the MICs according to EUCAST breakpoints, and notably, among the 6 to 9% VMEs, half were isolates with a wild-type CYP51A target gene that either may be harboring other resistance mechanisms or may be isolates that are truly susceptible but misclassified as R by the EUCAST reference method because of the conservative EUCAST susceptibility breakpoint (7). Finally, the separation between wild-type and TR34/L98H and TR46/Y121F T289A mutant isolates was greater for the MIC strip test, rendering it a potentially promising routine lab tool for detecting R environmental mutants, provided the FIE is used (2, 5, 19–21). The CYP51A amino acid alterations have been associated with a codon-specific susceptibility pattern (4, 13). Here, both the strip and EUCAST isavuconazole MICs indeed straddled the clinical breakpoint for isolates harboring M220 alterations and for the G54R N24K double mutant, which will inevitably lead to the random classification of such isolates as S or R in routine testing. Hence, as long as clinical outcome data are unavailable for such mutants, other measures such itraconazole MIC testing or CYP51A sequencing should be undertaken to detect these genotypes. This study has limitations. We investigated strip test reader-to-reader agreement but no other factors associated with variation, such as variation across different lots and brands of RPMI agar plates, inoculum preparation, etc. Therefore, the promising performance reported here needs confirmation in a multicenter study.
  20 in total

1.  EUCAST technical note on isavuconazole breakpoints for Aspergillus, itraconazole breakpoints for Candida and updates for the antifungal susceptibility testing method documents.

Authors:  M C Arendrup; J Meletiadis; J W Mouton; J Guinea; M Cuenca-Estrella; K Lagrou; S J Howard
Journal:  Clin Microbiol Infect       Date:  2016-02-03       Impact factor: 8.067

2.  Emergence of azole-resistant invasive aspergillosis in HSCT recipients in Germany.

Authors:  J Steinmann; A Hamprecht; M J G T Vehreschild; O A Cornely; D Buchheidt; B Spiess; M Koldehoff; J Buer; J F Meis; P-M Rath
Journal:  J Antimicrob Chemother       Date:  2015-01-27       Impact factor: 5.790

3.  EUCAST testing of Isavuconazole susceptibility in Aspergillus: comparison of results for Inoculum standardization using Conidium counting versus optical density.

Authors:  Maiken Cavling Arendrup; Susan Howard; Cornelia Lass-Flörl; Johan W Mouton; Joseph Meletiadis; Manuel Cuenca-Estrella
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2014-08-18       Impact factor: 5.191

4.  Aspergillus species and other molds in respiratory samples from patients with cystic fibrosis: a laboratory-based study with focus on Aspergillus fumigatus azole resistance.

Authors:  Klaus Leth Mortensen; Rasmus Hare Jensen; Helle Krogh Johansen; Marianne Skov; Tacjana Pressler; Susan Julie Howard; Howard Leatherbarrow; Emilia Mellado; Maiken Cavling Arendrup
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2011-04-20       Impact factor: 5.948

5.  Multi-triazole-resistant Aspergillus fumigatus infections in Australia.

Authors:  Sarah E Kidd; Emma Goeman; Jacques F Meis; Monica A Slavin; Paul E Verweij
Journal:  Mycoses       Date:  2015-04-17       Impact factor: 4.377

6.  Azole-resistant Aspergillus fumigatus isolates carrying TR₃₄/L98H mutations in Taiwan.

Authors:  Chi-Jung Wu; Hsuan-Chen Wang; Jen-Chieh Lee; Hsiu-Jung Lo; Ching-Tzu Dai; Pei-Hsin Chou; Wen-Chien Ko; Yee-Chun Chen
Journal:  Mycoses       Date:  2015-07-27       Impact factor: 4.377

7.  First Detection of TR34 L98H and TR46 Y121F T289A Cyp51 Mutations in Aspergillus fumigatus Isolates in the United States.

Authors:  Nathan P Wiederhold; Veronica Garcia Gil; Felipe Gutierrez; Jonathan R Lindner; Mohammad T Albataineh; Dora I McCarthy; Carmita Sanders; Hongxin Fan; Annette W Fothergill; Deanna A Sutton
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2015-10-21       Impact factor: 5.948

Review 8.  Azole Resistance in Aspergillus fumigatus: Can We Retain the Clinical Use of Mold-Active Antifungal Azoles?

Authors:  Paul E Verweij; Anuradha Chowdhary; Willem J G Melchers; Jacques F Meis
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2015-10-20       Impact factor: 9.079

9.  Frequency and evolution of Azole resistance in Aspergillus fumigatus associated with treatment failure.

Authors:  Susan J Howard; Dasa Cerar; Michael J Anderson; Ahmed Albarrag; Matthew C Fisher; Alessandro C Pasqualotto; Michel Laverdiere; Maiken C Arendrup; David S Perlin; David W Denning
Journal:  Emerg Infect Dis       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 6.883

10.  In vitro antifungal activities of isavuconazole (BAL4815), voriconazole, and fluconazole against 1,007 isolates of zygomycete, Candida, Aspergillus, Fusarium, and Scedosporium species.

Authors:  Jesús Guinea; Teresa Peláez; Sandra Recio; Marta Torres-Narbona; Emilio Bouza
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2008-01-22       Impact factor: 5.938

View more
  8 in total

Review 1.  Aspergillus fumigatus and aspergillosis: From basics to clinics.

Authors:  A Arastehfar; A Carvalho; J Houbraken; L Lombardi; R Garcia-Rubio; J D Jenks; O Rivero-Menendez; R Aljohani; I D Jacobsen; J Berman; N Osherov; M T Hedayati; M Ilkit; D James-Armstrong; T Gabaldón; J Meletiadis; M Kostrzewa; W Pan; C Lass-Flörl; D S Perlin; M Hoenigl
Journal:  Stud Mycol       Date:  2021-05-10       Impact factor: 16.097

Review 2.  Molecular Tools for the Detection and Deduction of Azole Antifungal Drug Resistance Phenotypes in Aspergillus Species.

Authors:  Anna Dudakova; Birgit Spiess; Marut Tangwattanachuleeporn; Christoph Sasse; Dieter Buchheidt; Michael Weig; Uwe Groß; Oliver Bader
Journal:  Clin Microbiol Rev       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 26.132

3.  (New) Methods for Detection of Aspergillus fumigatus Resistance in Clinical Samples.

Authors:  Jeffrey D Jenks; Birgit Spiess; Dieter Buchheidt; Martin Hoenigl
Journal:  Curr Fungal Infect Rep       Date:  2019-06-20

Review 4.  Responding to the emergence of antifungal drug resistance: perspectives from the bench and the bedside.

Authors:  Justin Beardsley; Catriona L Halliday; Sharon C-A Chen; Tania C Sorrell
Journal:  Future Microbiol       Date:  2018-08-16       Impact factor: 3.165

Review 5.  Antifungal Susceptibly Testing by Concentration Gradient Strip Etest Method for Fungal Isolates: A Review.

Authors:  Eric Dannaoui; Ana Espinel-Ingroff
Journal:  J Fungi (Basel)       Date:  2019-11-22

6.  Aspergillus Species and Antifungals Susceptibility in Clinical Setting in the North of Portugal: Cryptic Species and Emerging Azoles Resistance in A. fumigatus.

Authors:  Eugénia Pinto; Carolina Monteiro; Marta Maia; Miguel A Faria; Virgínia Lopes; Catarina Lameiras; Dolores Pinheiro
Journal:  Front Microbiol       Date:  2018-07-23       Impact factor: 5.640

Review 7.  Susceptibility Testing of Fungi to Antifungal Drugs.

Authors:  Maurizio Sanguinetti; Brunella Posteraro
Journal:  J Fungi (Basel)       Date:  2018-09-15

8.  Fatal VAP-related pulmonary aspergillosis by Aspergillus niger in a positive COVID-19 patient.

Authors:  Laura Trovato; Maddalena Calvo; Giuseppe Migliorisi; Marinella Astuto; Francesco Oliveri; Salvatore Oliveri
Journal:  Respir Med Case Rep       Date:  2021-02-18
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.