4.2 Article Proceedings Paper

In vitro activities of daptomycin, linezolid, and quinupristin-dalfopristin against a challenge panel of staphylococci and enterococci, including vancomycin-intermediate Staphylococcus aureus and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium

Journal

MICROBIAL DRUG RESISTANCE
Volume 9, Issue 4, Pages 389-393

Publisher

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/107662903322762833

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We assessed the in vitro activities of daptomycin, linezolid, and quinupristin-dalfopristin (QD) against a contemporary challenge panel of 88 staphylococcal and 90 enterococcal isolates. The staphylococci selected included vancomycin-intermediate Staphylococcus aureus (VISA), methicillin-resistant S. aureus, and coagulase-negative staphylococci. Enterococcal isolates included vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium (VREF) containing either vanA, vanB1, or vanD. The MICs of daptomycin, linezolid, and QD were determined using commercial broth microdilution panels. All three VISA isolates were susceptible to daptomycin, linezolid, and QD. QD was the most active agent against staphylococcal isolates (MIC50 less than or equal to 0.5 /mug/ml and MIC90 = 1 mug/ml), including those with decreased susceptibility to vancomycin. QD was also the most active agent against VREF (MIC90 less than or equal to 0.5 mug/ml). No differences were seen for susceptibility of vanA, vanB1, and vanD VREF strains for daptomycin, linezolid, or QD. Daptomycin was the most effective against E. faecalis. On the basis of manufacturer-suggested interpretive criteria, 92% of isolates were susceptible (MIC90 = 4 mug/ml). All isolates tested were susceptible to at least one antimicrobial agent for which interpretive criteria have been defined. Population analysis of three S. aureus isolates for which the daptomycin MICs were 8 mug/ml showed a pattern of homogeneous resistance.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available