A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Screening of azole resistance in Aspergillus fumigatus using the EUCAST E.Def 10.2 azole-containing agar method: a single study suggests that filtration of conidial suspensions prior to inoculum preparation may not be needed. | LitMetric

Background: Azole resistance screening in A. fumigatus isolates can be routinely carried out by using azole-containing plates (E.Def 10.2 method), that requires filtering conidial suspensions prior inoculum adjustment.

Objectives: We evaluated whether skipping the filtration step of conidial suspensions negatively influences the performance of the E.Def 10.2. Patients/Methods A. fumigatus sensu stricto isolates (n=92), classified as azole-susceptible or azole-resistant according to the EUCAST microdilution E.Def 9.4 method, were studied. Azole-resistant isolates had either wild type cyp51A gene sequence (n = 3) or the TR -L98H (n = 26), G54R (n = 5), TR -Y121F-T289A (n = 1), F46Y-M172V-N248T-D255E-E427K (n = 1), F165L (n=1), or G448S (n=1) cyp51A gene substitutions. In-house azole-containing agar plates were prepared according to the EUCAST E.Def 10.2 procedure. Conidial suspensions were obtained by adding distilled water (Tween 20 0.1%). Subsequently, the suspensions were either filtered or left unfiltered prior to inoculum adjustment to 0.5 McFarland. Using microdilution as the gold standard, agreement, sensitivity, and specificity of the agar plates inoculated with two inoculums were assessed.

Results: Agreements for the agar screening method with either unfiltered or filtered conidial suspensions were high for itraconazole (100%), voriconazole (100%), and posaconazole (97.8%). Sensitivity (100%) and specificity (98.2%) of the procedure to rule in or out resistance when unfiltered suspensions were used were also high. Isolates harbouring the TR -L98H, G54R, and TR -Y121F-T289A substitutions were detected with the modified method.

Conclusions: Unfiltered conidial suspensions does not negatively influence the performance of the E.Def 10.2 method when screening for A. fumigatus sensu stricto.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/myc.13492DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

conidial suspensions
24
edef 102
20
prior inoculum
12
azole resistance
8
eucast edef
8
azole-containing agar
8
suspensions
8
suspensions prior
8
screening fumigatus
8
102 method
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!