Interlaboratory evaluation of the Etest®for antifungal susceptibility testing of dermatophytes

References

• Porro AM. Disseminated dermatophytosis caused by Micro-sporum gypseum in two patients with the acquired immunode-ficiency syndrome. Mycopathologia 1997; 137: 9–12.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sentamilselvi G, Janaki C, Kamalam A, et al. Deep dermato-phytosis caused by Trichophyton rubrum — A case report. Mycopathologia 1998; 142: 9–11.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fernandez-Torres B, Carrillo AJ, et al. In vitro activities of 10 antifungal drugs against 508 dermatophyte strains. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2001; 45: 2524–2528.
   Google Scholar
• Korting HC, 011ert M, Abeck D. Results of German multicenter study of antimicrobial susceptibilities of Trichophyton rubrum and Trichophyton mentagrophytes strains causing tinea un-guium. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1995; 39: 1206–1208.
   Google Scholar
• Mock M, Monod M, Baudraz-Rosselet F, et al. Tinea capitis dermatophytes: susceptibility to antifungal drugs tested in vitro and in vivo. Dermatology 1998; 197: 361–367.
   Google Scholar
• Niewerth M, Splanemann V, Korting HC, et al. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing of dermatophytes: comparison of the agar macrodilution and broth microdilution tests. Chemotherapy 1998; 44: 31–35.
   Google Scholar
• Baker CN, Stocker SA, Culver DH, et al. Comparison of the Etest® to agar dilution, broth microdilution, and agar diffusion susceptibility testing techniques by using a special challenge set of bacteria. J Clin Microbiol 1991; 29: 533–538.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Favel A, Michel-Nguyen A, Chastin C, et al. In vitro suscept-ibility patterns of Candida lusitaniae and evaluation of the Etest® method. J Antimicrob Chemother 1997; 39: 591–596.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pfaller MA, Messer SA, Mills K, et al. In vitro susceptibility testing of filamentous fungi: comparison of Etest® and reference microdilution methods for determining itraconazole MICs. J Clin Microbiol 2000; 38: 3359–3361.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruhnke M, Schmidt-Westhausen A, Engelmann E, et al. Comparative evaluation of three antifungal susceptibility test methods for Candida albicans isolates and correlation with response to fluconazole therapy. J Clin Microbiol 1996; 34: 3208–3211.
   Google Scholar
• Espinel-Ingroff A, Pfaller M, Erwin ME, et al. Interlaboratory evaluation of Etest® method for testing antifungal susceptibil-ities of pathogenic yeasts to five antifungal agents by using casitone agar and solidified RPMI 1640 medium with 2% glucose. J Clin Microbiol 1996; 34: 848–852.
   Google Scholar
• Chen S, O'Donnell M, Gordon S, et al. Antifungal susceptibility testing using the Etest: comparison with the broth macrodilution technique. J Antimicrob Chemother 1996; 37: 265–273.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Espinel-Ingroff A. Etest® for antifungal susceptibility testing of yeasts. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 1994; 19: 217–220.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• AB Biodisk. Etest® technical guide N° 10: antifungal suscept-ibility testing of moulds. AB Biodisk, Solna, Sweden, 1997.
   Google Scholar
• Fernandez-Torres B, Vizquez-Veiga H, Llovo X, et al. In vitro susceptibility to itraconazole, clotrimazole, ketoconazole and terbinafine of 100 isolates of Trichophyton rubrum. Chemother-apy 2000; 46: 390–394.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. Refer-ence Method for Broth Dilution Antifungal Susceptibility Testing of Conidium-Forming Filamentous Fungi. Proposed Standard M38-P. Wayne, PA: The Committee; 1998.
   Google Scholar
• Espinel-Ingroff A. Comparison of the Etest® with the NCCLS M38-P method for antifungal susceptibility testing of common and emerging pathogenic filamentous fungi. J Clin Microbiol 2001; 39: 1360–1367.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Szekely A, Johnson EM, Warnock DW. Comparison of Etest® and broth microdilution methods for antifungal drug suscept-ibility testing of molds. J Clin Microbiol 1999; 37: 1480–1483.
   Google Scholar
• Pfaller MA, Messer SA, Bolmstrom A, et al. Multisite reprodu-cibility of the Etest® MIC method for antifungal susceptibility testing of yeast isolates. J Clin Microbiol 1996; 34: 1691–1693.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colombo AL, Barchiesi F, McGough DA, et al. Comparison of Etest® and National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards broth macrodilution method for azole antifungal susceptibility testing. J Clin Microbiol 1995; 33: 535–540.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fernandez-Torres B., Pereiro-Jr M., Guarro J. Comparison of two methods for antifungal susceptibility testing of Trichophy-ton rubrum. Eur J Clin Microbiol Inf Dis 2002; 21: 70–71.
   Google Scholar
• Espinel-Ingroff A. Evaluation of Etest® method for testing susceptibilities of Aspergillus spp. to voriconazole. In: Program and Abstracts of the fortieth Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (ICAAC): poster No. J212.17-20 September, 2000, Toronto, Canada.
   Google Scholar