Susceptibilidad antifúngica de levaduras mediante Etest ®: Comparación de 3 medios

Background: The increasing frequency of systemic fungal infections and the emergence of secondary resistance to antifungals in the lasts years, has stimulated the use of methods for antifungal susceptibility testing. Etest(r) is an easily performed quantitative method that has a good agreement with...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Tapia P,Cecilia, León C,Eugenia, Palavecino R,Elizabeth
Lenguaje:	Spanish / Castilian
Publicado:	Sociedad Médica de Santiago 2003
Materias:	Antibiotics, antifungal Colony count, microbial Culture media
Acceso en línea:	http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-98872003000300008
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:scielo:S0034-98872003000300008
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:scielo:S0034-988720030003000082004-12-13Susceptibilidad antifúngica de levaduras mediante Etest ®: Comparación de 3 mediosTapia P,CeciliaLeón C,EugeniaPalavecino R,Elizabeth Antibiotics, antifungal Colony count, microbial Culture media Background: The increasing frequency of systemic fungal infections and the emergence of secondary resistance to antifungals in the lasts years, has stimulated the use of methods for antifungal susceptibility testing. Etest(r) is an easily performed quantitative method that has a good agreement with the broth microdilution reference method (NCCLS), if appropriate media are used. Aim: To compare the susceptibility to Amphotericin B (AmB) and Fluconazole (Flu) of 22 opportunistic yeast isolates (C albicans (7), C tropicalis (9), C parapsilosis (3) and Cryptococcus neoformans (3) by Etest ®., using three different media and to choose the best medium for each tested drug. The studied media were RPMI 1640, Casitone (Cas) and Sabouraud. Results: The interpretation of minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) endpoints on Sabouraud was difficult for AmB. The American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) strains MICs were out of the acceptable range in this medium. RPMI and Cas were suitable media to test AmB and Flu, but best endpoints were obtained for AmB in RPMI and Flu in Cas. Conclusions: The use of appropriate media for each antifungal drug optimizes the MIC readings by Etest(r). AmB should be tested in RMPI and Flu in Cas. Sabouraud must not be used (Rev Méd Chile 2003; 131: 299-302).info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessSociedad Médica de SantiagoRevista médica de Chile v.131 n.3 20032003-03-01text/htmlhttp://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-98872003000300008es10.4067/S0034-98872003000300008
institution	Scielo Chile
collection	Scielo Chile
language	Spanish / Castilian
topic	Antibiotics, antifungal Colony count, microbial Culture media
spellingShingle	Antibiotics, antifungal Colony count, microbial Culture media Tapia P,Cecilia León C,Eugenia Palavecino R,Elizabeth Susceptibilidad antifúngica de levaduras mediante Etest ®: Comparación de 3 medios
description	Background: The increasing frequency of systemic fungal infections and the emergence of secondary resistance to antifungals in the lasts years, has stimulated the use of methods for antifungal susceptibility testing. Etest(r) is an easily performed quantitative method that has a good agreement with the broth microdilution reference method (NCCLS), if appropriate media are used. Aim: To compare the susceptibility to Amphotericin B (AmB) and Fluconazole (Flu) of 22 opportunistic yeast isolates (C albicans (7), C tropicalis (9), C parapsilosis (3) and Cryptococcus neoformans (3) by Etest ®., using three different media and to choose the best medium for each tested drug. The studied media were RPMI 1640, Casitone (Cas) and Sabouraud. Results: The interpretation of minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) endpoints on Sabouraud was difficult for AmB. The American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) strains MICs were out of the acceptable range in this medium. RPMI and Cas were suitable media to test AmB and Flu, but best endpoints were obtained for AmB in RPMI and Flu in Cas. Conclusions: The use of appropriate media for each antifungal drug optimizes the MIC readings by Etest(r). AmB should be tested in RMPI and Flu in Cas. Sabouraud must not be used (Rev Méd Chile 2003; 131: 299-302).
author	Tapia P,Cecilia León C,Eugenia Palavecino R,Elizabeth
author_facet	Tapia P,Cecilia León C,Eugenia Palavecino R,Elizabeth
author_sort	Tapia P,Cecilia
title	Susceptibilidad antifúngica de levaduras mediante Etest ®: Comparación de 3 medios
title_short	Susceptibilidad antifúngica de levaduras mediante Etest ®: Comparación de 3 medios
title_full	Susceptibilidad antifúngica de levaduras mediante Etest ®: Comparación de 3 medios
title_fullStr	Susceptibilidad antifúngica de levaduras mediante Etest ®: Comparación de 3 medios
title_full_unstemmed	Susceptibilidad antifúngica de levaduras mediante Etest ®: Comparación de 3 medios
title_sort	susceptibilidad antifúngica de levaduras mediante etest ®: comparación de 3 medios
publisher	Sociedad Médica de Santiago
publishDate	2003
url	http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-98872003000300008
work_keys_str_mv	AT tapiapcecilia susceptibilidadantifungicadelevadurasmedianteetestcomparacionde3medios AT leonceugenia susceptibilidadantifungicadelevadurasmedianteetestcomparacionde3medios AT palavecinorelizabeth susceptibilidadantifungicadelevadurasmedianteetestcomparacionde3medios
_version_	1718436083530727424

Susceptibilidad antifúngica de levaduras mediante Etest ®: Comparación de 3 medios

Ejemplares similares