Comparative evaluation of Etest and sensititre yeastone panels against the Clinical and Laboratory Standards...

To assess their utility for antifungal susceptibility testing in our clinical laboratory, the Etest and Sensititre methods were compared with the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) M27-A2 reference broth microdilution method. Fluconazole (FL), itraconazole (I), voriconazole (V), posaconazole (P), flucytosine (FC), caspofungin (C), and amphotericin B (A) were tested with 212 Candida isolates. Reference MICs were determined after 48 h of incubation, and Etest and Sensititre MICs were determined after 24 h and 48 h of incubation. Overall, excellent essential agreement (EA) between the reference and test methods was observed for Etest (95%) and Sensititre (91%). Etest showed an >or=92% EA for MICs for all drugs tested; Sensititre showed a >or=92% EA for MICs for I, FC, A, and C but 82% for FL and 85% for V. The overall categorical agreement (CA) was 90% for Etest and 88% for Sensititre; minor errors accounted for the majority of all categorical errors for both systems. Categorical agreement was lowest for Candida glabrata and Candida tropicalis with both test systems. Etest and Sensititre provided better CA at 24 h compared to 48 h for C. glabrata; however, CA for C. glabrata was <80% for FL with both test systems despite MIC determination at 24 h. Agreement between technologists for both methods was >or=98% for each agent against all organisms tested. Overall, Etest and Sensititre methods compared favorably with the CLSI reference method for determining the susceptibility of Candida. However, further evaluation of their performance for determining the MICs of azoles, particularly for C. glabrata, is warranted.