scholarly journals Multicenter evaluation of the reproducibility of the proposed antifungal susceptibility testing method for fermentative yeasts of the Antifungal Susceptibility Testing Subcommittee of the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (AFST-EUCAST)

2003 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. 467-474 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Cuenca-Estrella ◽  
C.B. Moore ◽  
F. Barchiesi ◽  
J. Bille ◽  
E. Chryssanthou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Antimicrobial Susceptibility ◽  
Susceptibility Testing ◽  
Antifungal Susceptibility ◽  
Antifungal Susceptibility Testing ◽  
Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing ◽  
European Committee ◽  
Testing Method

scholarly journals Etest Cannot Be Recommended forIn VitroSusceptibility Testing of Mucorales

2015 ◽  
Vol 59 (6) ◽  
pp. 3663-3665 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rita Caramalho ◽  
Elisabeth Maurer ◽  
Ulrike Binder ◽  
Ricardo Araújo ◽  
Somayeh Dolatabadi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Amphotericin B ◽  
Antimicrobial Susceptibility ◽  
Active Drug ◽  
Susceptibility Testing ◽  
Antifungal Susceptibility ◽  
Antifungal Susceptibility Testing ◽  
Broth Microdilution ◽  
European Committee ◽  
Susceptibility Patterns

ABSTRACTAmphotericin B and posaconazole susceptibility patterns were determined for the most prevalent Mucorales, following EUCAST (European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing) broth microdilution guidelines. In parallel, Etest was performed and evaluated against EUCAST. The overall agreement of MICs gained with Etest and EUCAST was 75.1%; therefore, Etest cannot be recommended for antifungal susceptibility testing of Mucorales. Amphotericin B was the most active drug against Mucorales speciesin vitro, while the activities of posaconazole were more restricted.

scholarly journals CIM City: the Game Continues for a Better Carbapenemase Test

2019 ◽  
Vol 57 (7) ◽  
Author(s):  
Romney M. Humphries
Keyword(s):  
Antimicrobial Susceptibility ◽  
Clinical Microbiology ◽  
Susceptibility Testing ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing ◽  
European Committee ◽  
Link Type ◽  
Clinical Laboratories ◽  
The Right

ABSTRACT The Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute and European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing agree that carbapenemase testing is not necessary for clinical care, provided that the laboratory is up to date with current breakpoints. Nonetheless, publication on the development and modification of carbapenemase tests continues, as is the case in this issue of the Journal of Clinical Microbiology (R. W. Beresford and M. Maley, J Clin Microbiol 57:e01852-18, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.01852-18). This commentary explores modifications to the carbapenem inactivation method—but is this the right focus for clinical laboratories?

scholarly journals Point-Counterpoint: Differences between the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing and Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute Recommendations for Reporting Antimicrobial Susceptibility Results

2019 ◽  
Vol 57 (9) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gunnar Kahlmeter ◽  
Christian G. Giske ◽  
Thomas J. Kirn ◽  
Susan E. Sharp
Keyword(s):  
Antimicrobial Susceptibility ◽  
Susceptibility Testing ◽  
Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing ◽  
Test Results ◽  
Diffusion Test ◽  
Disk Diffusion Test ◽  
Technical Variability ◽  
European Committee ◽  
Clinical Laboratories ◽  
Antibiotic Susceptibility Test

INTRODUCTION Antibiotic susceptibility test results are among the most important results issued by clinical microbiology laboratories because they routinely guide critical treatment decisions. Interpretations of MIC or disk diffusion test results, such as “susceptible” or “resistant,” are easily understood. Clinical laboratories also need to determine whether and how their reports will reflect more complex situations. Such situations include, first, whether there is need to administer higher or more frequent doses of antibiotic than usual for clinical efficacy; second, whether an antimicrobial is likely to be effective at a body site where it concentrates; and third, whether there is some uncertainty in the test results due to technical variability that cannot be eliminated. Two leading organizations that set standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing, the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) and the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI), have taken different strategies to deal with these challenges. In this Point-Counterpoint, Gunnar Kahlmeter and Christian Giske discuss how EUCAST is addressing these issues, and Thomas Kirn and Susan Sharp discuss the CLSI approach.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document