Identification and antifungal susceptibility profiles of Kodamaea ohmeri based on a seven-year multicenter surveillance study

Figures & data

Table 1 Distribution of the 62 Kodamaea ohmeri isolates by department and specimen type

Gender	Male (N=33, 53.2%)
	Female (N=29, 46.8%)
Age	59±19.3
Department	No.	%
Surgery	24	38.7
Medical	20	32.3
Intensive care unit	9	14.5
Pediatrics	4	6.5
Emergency	2	3.2
Organ transplantation	1	1.6
Dermatology	1	1.6
Rehabilitation	1	1.6
Total	62	100
Specimen type	No.	%
Blood	34	54.8
Catheter	10	16.1
Wound	5	8.1
Ascitic fluid	5	8.1
Drainage fluid	4	6.5
Bronchoalveolar lavage fluid	2	3.2
Pleural effusion	1	1.6
Cerebrospinal fluid	1	1.6
Total	62	100

Figure 1 Distribution of 62 Kodamaea ohmeri isolated from the seven-year surveillance study.

Abbreviation: CHIF-NET, China Hospital Invasive Fungal Surveillance Net. 

Table 2 Original identification results of the 62 Kodamaea ohmeri isolates submitted by local hospitals using different phenotypic methods

Identification Results	API 20C	ATB32C	BD Phoenix 100	CHROMagar	RapID™ YEAST PLUS	Vitek 2 Compact	Vitek MS
Correct ID (n=29, 46.8%)
Kodamaea ohmeri	9	4				14	2
Incorrect ID (n=33, 53.2%)
Candida glabrata	4	1		4
Candida lusitaniae	1
Candida albicans	1	1		9
Candida guilliermondii	1					2
Candida tropicalis			1	3
Cryptococcus neoformans					1
Candida famata						2
Candida pelliculosa						1
Candida rugosa						1
Percentage of correct ID	56.25	66.7	0.0	0.0	0.0	70.0	100.0
Percentage of incorrect ID	43.75	33.3	100.0	100.0	100.0	30.0	0.0

Table 3 Performance of Vitek 2 compact system, Vitek MS, and Bruker Biotyper MS compared with 26S rDNA gene sequencing for the identification of 62 Kodamaea ohmeri isolates

Identification system	Correct identification to species level		Correct identification to genus level		No identification (invalid result)		Misidentification
	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Vitek 2 Compact	51	82.3	0	0	11	17.7	0	0
Vitek MS system	61	98.4	0	0.0	1	1.6	0	0
Bruker Biotyper MS system
Direct transfer	8	12.9	44	71.0	10	16.1	0	0
Protein extraction	60	96.8	2	3.2	0	0.0	0	0

Table 4 Comparison of in-vitro antifungal susceptibility data (MIC, μg/mL) of the 62 Kodamaea ohmeri isolates against nine antifungal agents between BMD and SYY

Antibiotic	AST method	Number	MIC50	Fold	MIC90	Fold	MIC Range	Geom.Mean	EA
Anidulafungin	SYY	62	0.125	-	0.5	-	0.03–2	0.192	-
Micafungin	BMD	62	0.5	4	1	4	0.12–1	0.473	43.5%
	SYY	62	0.125		0.25		0.03–1	0.136
Caspofungin	BMD	62	0.5	2	1	1	0.25–2	0.691	50.0%
	SYY	62	0.25		1		0.015–2	0.24
5-Fluorocytosine	BMD	62	0.032	1	1	0.5	0.03–1	0.087	88.7%
	SYY	62	0.032		2		0.03–2	0.1
Posaconazole	BMD	62	0.125	4	0.25	2	<0.015–0.5	0.136	40.3%
	SYY	62	0.032		0.125		0.015–0.25	0.042
Voriconazole	BMD	62	0.064	2	0.25	4	<0.015–2	0.075	74.2%
	SYY	62	0.032		0.064		0.004–0.5	0.038
Itraconazole	BMD	62	0.5	4	0.5	4	0.06–1	0.399	22.6%
	SYY	62	0.125		0.125		0.008–0.5	0.091
Fluconazole	BMD	62	4	1	8	1	1–>256	5.115	91.9%
	SYY	62	4		8		0.5–64	5.058
Amphotericin B	BMD	62	0.5	1	1	2	0.5–1	0.598	95.2%
	SYY	62	0.5		0.5		0.06–0.5	0.409

Abbreviations: BMD, broth microdilution method; SYY, Sensititre YeastOne YO10; EA, essential agreement; MIC, minimuminhibition concentrations.