Skip directly to site content Skip directly to page options Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link
Volume 10, Number 1—January 2004
Dispatch

Antifungal Susceptibilities of Cryptococcus neoformans

Lennox K. Archibald*1Comments to Author , Marion J. Tuohy†, Deborah A. Wilson†, Okey Nwanyanwu‡, Peter N. Kazembe‡, Somsit Tansuphasawadikul§, Boonchuay Eampokalap§, Achara Chaovavanich§, L.Barth Reller¶, William R. Jarvis*, Gerri S. Hall†, and Gary W. Procop†
Author affiliations: *Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA; †Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio, USA; ‡Lilongwe Central Hospital, Lilongwe, Malawi; §Bamrasnaradura Hospital, Nonthaburi, Thailand; ¶Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA

Main Article

Table 2

Percentage of Cryptococcus neoformans isolates susceptible at each MIC dilution

% Susceptible
MICs (μg/mL) U.S. isolates Thailand isolates Malawi isolates
Amphotericin B
0.5 3
1 50 72 31
2 100 100 100
Fluconazole
1 5
2 30
4 40 21 25
8 90 83 87
16 100 100 94
32 100
Itraconazole
0.016 5
0.030 15 14 50
0.060 75 93 87
0.125 10 100 100
5 Flucytosine
1 6
2 5 7 12
4 60 72 69
8 100 100 94
16 100
Ketoconazole
<0.008 5
0.016 20 12
0.030 35 14 62
0.060 90 79 75
0.125 95 93 81
0.250 100 100 100

Main Article

1 Present address: Regeneration Technologies, Inc., Alachua, Florida, USA.

Page created: December 21, 2010
Page updated: December 21, 2010
Page reviewed: December 21, 2010
The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.
file_external