SURVEY OF THE IN VITRO SUSCEPTIBILITY OF ASPERGILLUS SPP. TO ANTIFUNGAL AGENTS USING BROTH MICRODILUTION AND E-TEST METHODS

Hồng Phúc Trần, Thiên Phú Trương, Ngọc Trương Nguyễn, Nguyễn Hoàng Vũ Lê, Phước Vũ Võ , Xuân Hùng Nguyễn, Huy Búp Phạm, Thị Thanh Thủy Văn, Thị Huệ Vân Trần

Main Article Content

Abstract

Objective: Aspergillus infections are a serious medical challenge, particularly in immunocompromised patients. The increasing resistance to antifungal drugs, especially azoles, requires continuous surveillance and evaluation of susceptibility testing methods. This study was conducted to investigate the distribution of Aspergillus species and their susceptibility to antifungal agents isolated at Cho Ray Hospital, as well as to compare the agreement between broth microdilution and E-test methods. Subjects and methods: A cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted on 50 Aspergillus spp. isolates obtained from respiratory specimens at Cho Ray Hospital between October 2024 and August 2025. The isolates were tested for susceptibility to antifungal agents (amphotericin B, caspofungin, voriconazole, itraconazole, posaconazole) using two parallel methods: broth microdilution (Sensititre™ YeastOne™) and E-test. Results: Among the 49 isolates investigated, Aspergillus fumigatus was the most frequently recovered species (31/49, 62.0%), followed by A. flavus (12/49, 24.0%), A. niger (5/49, 10.0%), and A. terreus (1/49, 2.0%). Two A. fumigatus isolates (6.5%) were resistant to voriconazole, and five isolates (16.1%) were classified as non-wild-type with itraconazole by the broth microdilution method. For amphotericin B, one A. fumigatus and two A. niger isolates were identified as non-wild-type. Other species, including A. flavus and A. terreus, were susceptible to all antifungal agents tested. The overall categorical agreement (susceptible/resistant or WT/non-WT) between Sensititre and E-test was high. Nevertheless, some notable discrepancies were observed, particularly with voriconazole and itraconazole in isolates with MICs near the clinical breakpoints. Posaconazole was not applicable for A. fumigatus, and all other isolates were categorized as wild-type. Conclusion: A. fumigatus was the predominant species among the Aspergillus isolates. Although the azole resistance rate was not high, its presence highlights the need for routine surveillance. The E-test showed good agreement with the reference broth microdilution method and may serve as an effective screening tool in clinical practice, but results near resistance thresholds should be confirmed using the standard method.

Article Details

References

1. Kanaujia R, Singh S, Rudramurthy SM. Aspergillosis: an update on clinical spectrum, diagnostic schemes, and management. Current Fungal Infection Reports. 2023;17(2):144-155.
2. Phạm Ngọc Minh. Ký sinh trùng Y học, Tập 2. Nhà xuất bản Y học; 2023.
3. Verweij PE, Chowdhary A, Melchers WJG, Meis JF. Azole resistance in Aspergillus fumigatus: can we retain the clinical use of mold-active antifungal azoles? Clinical Infectious Diseases. 2016;62(3):362-368.
4. Duong T‐MN, Le T‐V, Tran K‐LH, et al. Azole‐resistant Aspergillus fumigatus is highly prevalent in the environment of Vietnam, with marked variability by land use type. Environmental Microbiology. 2021;23(12):7632-7642.
5. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). Reference method for broth dilution antifungal susceptibility testing of filamentous fungi. CLSI document M38. Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; 2017.
6. Melhem MSC, Coelho VC, Fonseca CA, et al. Evaluation of the sensititre YeastOne and Etest in comparison with CLSI M38-A2 for antifungal susceptibility testing... against Aspergillus fumigatus and other species... Pharmaceutics. 2022;14(10):2161.
7. Perfect JR. The impact of the host on fungal infections. Am J Med. 2012;125(1 Suppl):S39–S51.
8. Van de Veerdonk FL, et al. Host and fungal factors in the pathogenesis of aspergillosis. Virulence. 2017;8(2):316–322.
9. Denning DW, et al. Azole resistance in Aspergillus fumigatus: a global public health challenge. Journal of Global Antimicrobial Resistance. 2015;3(3):178–187.