Evaluation of Etest and macrodilution broth method for antifungal susceptibility testing of Candida sp strains isolated from oral cavities of AIDS patients

A comparison of the Etest and the reference broth macrodilution susceptibility test for fluconazole, ketoconazole, itraconazole and amphotericin B was performed with 59 of Candida species isolated from the oral cavities of AIDS patients. The Etest method was performed according to the manufacturer's instructions, and the reference method was performed according to National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards document M27-A guidelines. Our data showed that there was a good correlation between the MICs obtained by the Etest and broth dilution methods. When only the MIC results at ± 2 dilutions for both methods were considered, the agreement rates were 90.4% for itraconazole, ketoconazole and amphotericin B and 84.6% for fluconazole of the C. albicans tested. In contrast, to the reference method, the Etest method classified as susceptible three fluconazole-resistant isolates and one itraconazole-resistant isolate, representing four very major errors. These results indicate that Etest could be considered useful for antifungal sensitivity evaluation of yeasts in clinical laboratories.

EVALUATION OF METHODS IN DETECTING VANCOMYCIN MIC AMONG MRSA ISOLATES AND THE CHANGES IN ACCURACY RELATED TO DIFFERENT MIC VALUES

INTRODUCTION: Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) presenting reduced susceptibility to vancomycin has been associated to therapeutic failure. Some methods used by clinical laboratories may not be sufficiently accurate to detect this phenotype, compromising results and the outcome of the patient. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the performance of methods in the detection of vancomycin MIC values among clinical isolates of MRSA. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The Vancomycin Minimal Inhibitory Concentration was determined for 75 MRSA isolates from inpatients of Mãe de Deus Hospital, Porto Alegre, Brazil. The broth microdilution (BM) was used as the gold-standard technique, as well as the following methods: E-test® strips (BioMérieux), M.I.C.E® strips (Oxoid), PROBAC® commercial panel and the automated system MicroScan® (Siemens). Besides, the agar screening test was carried out with 3 µg/mL of vancomycin. RESULTS: All isolates presented MIC ≤ 2 µg/mL for BM. E-test® had higher concordance (40%) in terms of global agreement with the gold standard, and there was not statistical difference among E-test® and broth microdilution results. PROBAC® panels presented MICs, in general, lower than the gold-standard panels (58.66% major errors), while M.I.C.E.® MICs were higher (67.99% minor errors). CONCLUSIONS: For the population of MRSA in question, E-test® presented the best performance, although with a heterogeneous accuracy, depending on MIC values.