Frequency and Evolution of Azole Resistance in Aspergillus fumigatus Associated with Treatment Failure1

An increase in the frequency of azole-resistant Aspergillus fumigatus has emerged

How to: EUCAST recommendations on the screening procedure E.Def 10.1 for the detection of azole resistance in Aspergillus fumigatus isolates using four-well azole-containing agar plates.

BACKGROUND: The emergence of azole-resistant Aspergillus fumigatus isolates is a matter of significant concern in Europe, with countries reporting resistance rates (which can be as high as 30%) in hospitalized patients. Consequently, the treatment guidelines in The Netherlands, the country with the highest documented prevalence of azole-resistant A. fumigatus, has just been revised to now recommend initial therapy with combination therapy until the susceptibility pattern is known. Therefore, susceptibility testing of clinically relevant isolates has been strongly recommended in the ESCMID-EFISG aspergillosis guidelines. Furthermore, mixed azole-susceptible and azole-resistant (isogenic as well as non-isogenic) infections have been reported to occur, which implies that colonies of clinical cultures may harbour various phenotypes of azole susceptibility. OBJECTIVES: The EUCAST-AFST (European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing Subcommittee on Antifungal Susceptibility Testing) has released a new screening method document (E.Def 10.1) for the detection of azole-resistant A. fumigatus isolates and updated the QC tables for antifungal susceptibility testing with associated QC endpoints. This review described in detail how to perform the screening test. SOURCES: This "How to document" is based on the EUCAST azole agar screening method document E.Def 10.1 and the QC tables for antifungal susceptibility testing document, v 2.0 (available at http://www.eucast.org/ast_of_fungi/qcafsttables/) CONTENTS: The method is based on the inoculation of azole-containing and azole-free agars and visual determination of fungal growth after one and two days of incubation. It can easily be implemented in routine laboratories of clinical microbiology and has been validated for simultaneous testing of up to five A. fumigatus colonies using itraconazole and voriconazole (mandatory), and posaconazole (optional). IMPLICATIONS: This easy-to-use screening procedure for the detection of azole resistance in clinical A. fumigatus isolates will allow rapid testing in the daily routine of the microbiology laboratory and thus facilitate earlier appropriate therapy.status: publishe

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

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.status: publishe