How to interpret MICs of antifungal compounds according to the revised clinical breakpoints v. 10.0 European committee on antimicrobial susceptibility testing (EUCAST).

Arendrup, M C; Friberg, N; Mares, M; Kahlmeter, G; Meletiadis, J; Guinea, J (2020). How to interpret MICs of antifungal compounds according to the revised clinical breakpoints v. 10.0 European committee on antimicrobial susceptibility testing (EUCAST). Clinical microbiology and infection, 26(11), pp. 1464-1472. Elsevier 10.1016/j.cmi.2020.06.007

Text How_to.pdf - Published Version Restricted to registered users only Available under License Publisher holds Copyright. Download (849kB)

BACKGROUND

EUCAST has revised the definition of the susceptibility category I from 'Intermediate' to 'Susceptible, Increased exposure'. This implies that I can be used where the drug concentration at the site of infection is high, either because of dose escalation or through other means to ensure efficacy. Consequently, I is no longer used as a buffer zone to prevent technical factors from causing misclassifications and discrepancies in interpretations. Instead, an Area of Technical Uncertainty (ATU) has been introduced for MICs that cannot be categorized without additional information as a warning to the laboratory that decision on how to act has to be made. To implement these changes, the EUCAST-AFST (Subcommittee on Antifungal Susceptibility Testing) reviewed all, and revised some, clinical antifungal breakpoints.

OBJECTIVES

The aim was to present an overview of the current antifungal breakpoints and supporting evidence behind the changes.

SOURCES

This document is based on the ten recently updated EUCAST rationale documents, clinical breakpoint and breakpoint ECOFF documents.

CONTENT

The following breakpoints (in mg/L) have been revised or established for Candida species: micafungin against C. albicans (ATU = 0.03); amphotericin B (S ≤/> R = 1/1), fluconazole (S ≤/> R = 2/4), itraconazole (S ≤/> R = 0.06/0.06), posaconazole (S ≤/> R = 0.06/0.06) and voriconazole (S ≤/> R = 0.06/0.25) against C. dubliniensis; fluconazole against C. glabrata (S ≤/> R = 0.001/16); and anidulafungin (S ≤/> R = 4/4) and micafungin (S ≤/> R = 2/2) against C. parapsilosis. For Aspergillus, new or revised breakpoints include itraconazole (ATU = 2) and isavuconazole against A. flavus (S ≤/> R = 1/2, ATU = 2); amphotericin B (S ≤/> R = 1/1), isavuconazole (S ≤ /> R = 1/2, ATU = 2), itraconazole (S ≤/> R = 1/1, ATU = 2), posaconazole (ATU = 0.25) and voriconazole (S ≤/> R = 1/1, ATU = 2) against A. fumigatus; itraconazole (S ≤/> R = 1/1, ATU = 2) and voriconazole (S ≤/> R = 1/1, ATU = 2) against A. nidulans; amphotericin B against A. niger (S ≤/> R = 1/1); and itraconazole (S ≤/> R = 1/1, ATU = 2) and posaconazole (ATU = 0.25) against A. terreus.

IMPLICATIONS

EUCAST-AFST has released ten new documents summarizing existing and new breakpoints and MIC ranges for control strains. A failure to adopt the breakpoint changes may lead to misclassifications and suboptimal or inappropriate therapy of patients with fungal infections.

Interest & Impact

Downloads

1 since deposited on 29 Dec 2020
0 in the past 12 months

Citations

5 Citations in Web of Science ®
6 Citations in Scopus

Search

in Google Scholar™

Services

Actions (login required)

Edit item

Actions (login required)

Edit item