Sensititre YeastOne显色药敏板与微量肉汤稀释法检测曲霉体外抗真菌药物敏感性的一致性研究

中国真菌学杂志　 2020, Vol. 15 　Issue (4): 197-201.

Sensititre YeastOne显色药敏板与微量肉汤稀释法检测曲霉体外抗真菌药物敏感性的一致性研究

李颖^1,3, 王贺^2,3, 张戈^2,3, 刘文静^2,3, 徐英春^2,3

1. 首都医科大学宣武医院检验科, 北京 100053;
2. 中国医学科学院北京协和医院检验科, 北京 100730;
3. 侵袭性真菌病机制研究与精准诊断北京市重点实验室, 北京 100730

收稿日期:2019-09-04 出版日期:2020-08-28 发布日期:2020-08-28
通讯作者: 徐英春,Email:xycpumch@139.com E-mail:xycpumch@139.com
作者简介:李颖,女(汉族),博士,检验技师.Email:bravezane@163.com

Comparative evaluation of Sensititre YeastOne colorimetric panel with broth microdilution method for in vitro antifungal susceptibility testing of Aspergillus

LI Ying^1,3, WANG He^2,3, ZHANG Ge^2,3, LIU Wen-jing^2,3, XU Ying-chun^2,3

1. Department of Clinical Laboratory, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100053, China;
2. Department of Clinical Laboratory, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing 100730, China;
3. Beijing Key Laboratory for Mechanisms Research and Precision Diagnosis of Invasive Fungal Diseases, Beijing 100730, China

Received:2019-09-04 Online:2020-08-28 Published:2020-08-28

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

目的评估显色药敏板Sensititre YeastOne与微量肉汤稀释法检测曲霉体外抗真菌药物敏感性的一致性。方法使用同样的孢子悬液按照CLSI M38-A2微量肉汤稀释法和Sensititre YeastOne YO10对307株曲霉进行体外抗真菌药物敏感性试验，计算两种药敏方法结果间的基本一致性、分类一致性以及错误率。结果 CLSI M38-A2药敏试验显示98.4%（302/307）曲霉菌株对测试的6种抗真菌药物持野生型状态，Sensititre YeastOne则检出97.1%（298/307）菌株为野生型。除伊曲康唑外，其余5种抗真菌药物在Sensititre YeastOne与CLSI M38-A2间的基本一致性均>90%。两种方法在曲霉药物敏感性检测的分类一致性为98.1%（301/307），极显著错误率为0.3%（1/307），显著错误率为1.6%（5/307）。结论 Sensititre YeastOne在检测曲霉体外药物敏感性方面与CLSI方法一致性良好，可用于临床实验室曲霉体外药敏检测。

关键词: 曲霉, 抗真菌药物敏感性试验, Sensititre YeastOne, 微量肉汤稀释法

Abstract:

Objective To evaluate the consistence of Sensititre YeastOne colorimetric panel and the reference broth microdilution method in in vitro antifungal susceptibility testing (AFST) of Aspergillus. Methods In vitro AFST of 307 Aspergillus isolates were performed by reference CLSI M38-A2 method and Sensititre YeastOne YO10 panel parallelly, and the statistical parameters including essential agreement (EA), category agreement (CA) and error rates between these two methods in Aspergillus AFST were calculated. Results 98.4% (302/307) of Aspergillus isolates were wild type (WT) against tested six antifungal agents revealed by CLSI M38-A2 AFST, while Sensititre YeastOne detected 97.1% (298/307) isolates as totally WT. The EA regarding tested antifungals were over 90% between CLSI M38-A2 method and Sensititre YeastOne in this study except for Itraconazole. The CA of these two methods in Aspergillus AFST was 98.1% (301/307); the very major error (VME) rate and the major error (ME) were 0.3% (1/307) and 1.6% (5/307), respectively. Conclusion Sensititre YeastOne has a satisfied agreement with CLSI reference method in in vitro AFST of Aspergillus, which provides a prospect of applying Sensititre YeastOne into routine AFST of Aspergillus in clinical laboratories.

Key words: Aspergillus, antifungal susceptibility testing, Sensititre YeastOne, broth microdilution

中图分类号:

R379.6

李颖, 王贺, 张戈, 刘文静, 徐英春. Sensititre YeastOne显色药敏板与微量肉汤稀释法检测曲霉体外抗真菌药物敏感性的一致性研究[J]. 中国真菌学杂志, 2020, 15(4): 197-201.

LI Ying, WANG He, ZHANG Ge, LIU Wen-jing, XU Ying-chun. Comparative evaluation of Sensititre YeastOne colorimetric panel with broth microdilution method for in vitro antifungal susceptibility testing of Aspergillus[J]. Chinese Journal of Mycology, 2020, 15(4): 197-201.

参考文献

[1] Taccone FS, Van den Abeele AM, Bulpa P, et al. Epidemiology of invasive aspergillosis in critically ill patients:clinical presentation, underlying conditions, and outcomes[J]. Crit Care, 2015, 19(1):7.
[2] Min Chen, Yuan Xu, Nan Hong, et al. Epidemiology of fungal infections in China[J]. Front Med, 2018, 12(1):58-75.
[3] Resendiz Sharpe A, Lagrou K, Meis JF, et al. Triazole resistance surveillance in Aspergillus fumigatus[J]. Med Mycol, 2018, 56(suppl_1):83-92.
[4] Pfaller MA, Chaturvedi V, Diekema DJ, et al. Comparison of the Sensititre YeastOne colorimetric antifungal panel with CLSI microdilution for antifungal susceptibility testing of the echinocandins against Candida spp., using new clinical breakpoints and epidemiological cutoff values[J]. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis, 2012, 73(4):365-368.
[5] Posteraro B, Spanu T, Fiori B, et al. Antifungal susceptibility profiles of bloodstream yeast isolates by Sensititre YeastOne over nine years at a large Italian teaching hospital[J]. Antimicrob Agents Chemother, 2015, 59(7):3944-3955.
[6] 郭莉娜, 徐英春, 范欣, 等. Sensititre YeastOne显色药敏板检测念珠菌属体外药物敏感性临床应用研究[J]. 中华医院感染学杂志, 2016, 26(10):2211-2214.
[7] Castro C, Serrano MC, Flores B, et al. Comparison of the Sensititre YeastOne colorimetric antifungal panel with a modified NCCLS M38-A method to determine the activity of voriconazole against clinical isolates of Aspergillus spp.[J]. J Clin Microbiol, 2004, 42(9):4358-4360.
[8] Guinea J, Peláez T, Alcalá L, et al. Comparison of Sensititre YeastOne with the NCCLS M38-A microdilution method to determine the activity of amphotericin B, voriconazole, and itraconazole against clinical isolates of Aspergillus fumigatus[J]. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis, 2006, 56(1):53-55.
[9] Siopi M, Pournaras S, Meletiadis J. Comparative evaluation of Sensititre YeastOne and CLSI M38-A2 reference method for antifungal susceptibility testing of Aspergillus spp. against echinocandins[J]. J Clin Microbiol, 2017, 55(6):1714-1719.
[10] 李颖, 徐英春. 评价ITS、BenA和CaM序列分析在曲霉菌种鉴定方面的应用[J]. 中国真菌学杂志, 2017, 12(2):74-77.
[11] Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Reference method for broth dilution antifungal susceptibility testing of filamentous fungi[S]. 2nd ed, Wayne, PA:CLSI 2008 document M38-A2.
[12] Clinical and Laboratory Standard Institute. Epidemiological cutoff values for antifungal susceptibility testing[S]. Wayne, PA:CLSI 2018 document M59.
[13] Pfaler MA, Chaturvedi V, Diekema DJ, et al. Clinical evaluation of the Sensititre YeastOne colorimetric antifungal panel for antifungal susceptibility testing of the echinocandins anidulafungin, caspofungin and micafungin[J]. J Clin Microbiol, 2008, 46(7):2155-2159.
[14] 孙宏莉, 胡继红, 罗燕萍, 等. 2015年全国Vitek-2细菌药敏检测系统药敏试验结果准确性调查研究[J]. 中华医院感染学杂志, 2016, 26(10):2161-2165.
[15] Lockhart SR, Ghannoum MA, Alexander BD. Establishment and use of epidemiological cutoff values for molds and yeasts by use of the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute M57 standard[J]. J Clin Microbiol, 2017, 55(5):1262-1268.
[16] Yong Chen, Zhongyi Lu, Jingjun Zhao, et al. Epidemiology and molecular characterizations of azole resistance in clinical and environmental Aspergillus fumigatus isolates from China[J]. Antimicrob Agents Chemother, 2016, 60(10):5878-5884.