Comparison of clinical laboratory standards institute (CLSI) microdilution method and vitek 2 automated antifungal susceptibility system for the determination of antifungal susceptibility of candida species

Abstract

IntroductionChanges in the epidemiology of Candida infections, increasing resistance, and advances in treatment have increased the need to perform antifungal susceptibility testing in clinical laboratories. Standardized reference, the microbroth dilution method, and various commercial antifungal susceptibility test systems are used to determine antifungal susceptibility. This study aims to determine and compare the antifungal susceptibility of various Candida species isolated from blood cultures in our laboratory with the CLSI M27 microdilution reference method and VITEK 2 automated system (bioMerieux, Marcy-l'Etoile, France).MethodsThe antifungal susceptibility of a total of 140 Candida strains to fluconazole, voriconazole, and amphotericin B, and a total of 92 strains to anidulafungin was tested with the CLSI M27 method and the VITEK 2 automated system. For fluconazole, voriconazole, and amphotericin B, essential and categorical agreement percentages were calculated between the two methods. Because there is no anidulafungin in the VITEK 2 system, anidulafungin results obtained with CLSI were compared with micafungin only in terms of categorical agreement. In the category comparison, CLSI clinical breakpoints were used; the epidemiological cut-off values were used when they were not available. Very major error, major error, and minor error rates were calculated.ResultsIn general, the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) values obtained with VITEK 2 for azole group drugs were found to be one-fold higher than the CLSI MICs read at the 24th hour. While the essential agreement between the two methods was >90% for amphotericin B and voriconazole, it remained at 85% for fluconazole. Overall, the best categorical agreement was obtained with amphotericin B (99.3%), and the least categorical agreement was obtained with voriconazole (85.7%). A very major error was seen with amphotericin B (0.7%) and fluconazole (0.7%) in one C. parapsilosis strain each. No resistance was detected with VITEK 2 in one C. glabrata strain found to be resistant to fluconazole by the reference method. Major and minor error rates were higher for azole drugs than amphotericin B and anidulafungin/micafungin.ConclusionThe VITEK 2 system is a fast and highly applicable system, and with these features, it is advantageous for routine laboratories. In this study, although the error rate was not very high, one fluconazole-resistant C. parapsilosis and C. glabrata strain could not be detected with VITEK 2. The increase in data on the antifungal performance of the VITEK 2 system, which is available in many routine laboratories due to its ability to be used for bacteria identification and sensitivity, will contribute to the usability of the system for this purpose. In this study, data that will support the literature information in terms of the antifungal performance of the VITEK 2 system are presented.