首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Antibiotics >In Vitro Azole and Amphotericin B Susceptibilities of Malassezia furfur from Bloodstream Infections Using E-Test and CLSI Broth Microdilution Methods
【2h】

In Vitro Azole and Amphotericin B Susceptibilities of Malassezia furfur from Bloodstream Infections Using E-Test and CLSI Broth Microdilution Methods

机译:E-Tes​​t和CLSI肉汤微稀释法从血液感染中糠fur马拉色菌的体外Azole和两性霉素B敏感性

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

The number of reports of bloodstream infections is constantly increasing and there is a need for more simple antifungal susceptibility methods for their management. In this study, a total of 39 isolates collected from hospitalized patients with fungemia were screened for antifungal susceptibility to azole and amphotericin B (AmB) using Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute broth microdilution (CLSI BMD) and E-test in Sabouraud dextrose agar + 1% Tween80 (SDAt) and mDixon agar (DIX). Essential agreement (EA) and discrepancies between the two methods were evaluated after 48 h and 72 h reading times. Itraconazole (ITZ) and posaconazole (POS) displayed the lowest MIC values whereas fluconazole (FLZ) and AmB the highest, regardless of the methods and the reading time. The EA between BMD was >95% for FLZ and voriconazole (VOR) regardless of the media in the E-tests and reading time. The EA between BMD with E-test for AmB was >97% only when E-test in SDAt was used. The EA between BMD and E-test for ITZ and POS varied according to the media in E-test procedures and the reading time and was higher than 66.6% (POS) or 72% (ITZ) only when SABt was used. Substantial discrepancies for ITZ and POS were >5.1% regardless of the media and the reading time. This study suggests that the E-test in SABt represents an alternative method to CLSI BMD to evaluate the susceptibility of to FLZ, VOR and AmB and not for ITZ and POS.
机译:关于血流感染的报道数量在不断增加,并且需要更简单的抗真菌药敏方法来进行治疗。在这项研究中,使用临床和实验室标准协会肉汤微稀释液(CLSI BMD)和E-test在Sabouraud葡萄糖琼脂+ 1中进行的筛查,从住院的真菌病患者中收集了39株分离株对吡咯和两性霉素B(AmB)的抗真菌敏感性。 %Tween80(SDAt)和mDixon琼脂(DIX)。在阅读48小时和72小时后,评估了两种方法之间的基本一致性(EA)和差异。无论使用何种方法和阅读时间,伊曲康唑(ITZ)和泊沙康唑(POS)的MIC值最低,而氟康唑(FLZ)和AmB的MIC值最高。 FLZ和伏立康唑(VOR)在BMD之间的EA大于95%,无论E测试中的培养基和阅读时间如何。仅当使用SDAt中的E-test时,BMD与AmB的E-test之间的EA才> 97%。 ITZ和POS的BMD和E-test之间的EA因E-test程序中的介质和读取时间而异,仅当使用SABt时才高于66.6%(POS)或72%(ITZ)。无论介质和读取时间如何,ITZ和POS的重大差异均> 5.1%。这项研究表明,SABt中的E检验是CLSI BMD的替代方法,用于评估FLZ,VOR和AmB的敏感性,而不是ITZ和POS的敏感性。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号