Chinese Journal of Dermatology ›› 2025, Vol. 58 ›› Issue (12): 1173-1179.doi: 10.35541/cjd.20240177

• Technique and Method • Previous Articles     Next Articles

Comparison of the Droplet48 method, microbroth dilution method, and Sensititre YeastOne method for antifungal susceptibility testing of Candida, Cryptococcus, and Aspergillus

Pan Kaisu1, Zheng Dongyan1,2, Wu Weixuan1, Cao Cunwei1,3, Liu Jingping1#br#   

  1. 1Department of Dermatology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning 530022, China; 2Fangchenggang Wanqing Institute of Mycosis Prevention and Control, Fangchenggang 538000,China; 3Guangxi Key Laboratory of AIDS Prevention and Treatment, Nanning 530021, China
  • Received:2024-04-07 Revised:2024-07-12 Online:2025-12-15 Published:2025-12-04
  • Contact: Liu Jingping E-mail:ljp003471@163.com
  • Supported by:
    National Key Research and Development Program of China (2022YFC2504800); Guangxi Innovation Research Team (2020GXNSFGA238001);Guangxi Science and Technology Base and Talent Special Program (AD23026325)

Abstract: 【Abstract】 Objective To compare and analyze the consistency of antifungal susceptibility of clinical isolates of Candida, Cryptococcus, and Aspergillus to 9 antifungal drugs between the Droplet48 method and the microbroth dilution method, as well as between the Droplet48 method and the Sensititre YeastOne method. Methods A total of 70 Candida strains, 40 Aspergillus strains, and 24 Cryptococcus strains isolated from clinical samples were tested for antifungal susceptibility. The minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of fluconazole, voriconazole, itraconazole, posaconazole, amphotericin B, flucytosine, anidulafungin, micafungin, and caspofungin were determined using the microbroth dilution method, Sensititre YeastOne method, and Droplet48 method. The essential agreements of MIC values were evaluated between the microbroth dilution method and the Droplet48 method, as well as between the Sensititre YeastOne method and the Droplet48 method. Spearman's correlation analysis was carried out to evaluate the consistency between different methods by calculating the correlation coefficients of MIC values obtained by the Droplet48 method and the two reference methods. Results The essential agreements of MICs of the 9 antifungal drugs against Candida, Aspergillus, and Cryptococcus between the microbroth dilution method and the Droplet48 method were 84.3% - 92.9%, 85.0% - 92.5%, and 83.3% - 100%, respectively; the essential agreements between the Sensititre YeastOne method and the Droplet48 method for Candida, Aspergillus, and Cryptococcus were 85.7% - 94.3%, 90% - 95%, and 87.5% - 100%, respectively. The correlation coefficients of MIC values between the Droplet48 method and the reference methods ranged from 0.602 to 0.934. Spearman's correlation analysis showed that P values were all < 0.05, indicating good consistency of the Droplet48 method with the reference methods. Conclusion The Droplet48 method demonstrated good consistency with both the microbroth dilution method and the Sensititre YeastOne method in evaluating the antifungal susceptibility of Candida, Aspergillus, and Cryptococcus, proving to be a more automated and reliable approach.

Key words: Microbial sensitivity tests, Droplet48, Microbroth dilution method, Sensititre YeastOne