4.7 Article

Comparative efficacy of daptomycin and vancomycin in the therapy of experimental foreign body infection due to Staphylococcus aureus

Journal

JOURNAL OF ANTIMICROBIAL CHEMOTHERAPY
Volume 52, Issue 1, Pages 89-95

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jac/dkg277

Keywords

Gram-positive bacteria; chronic infections; antimicrobial agents

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The therapeutic activity of daptomycin was compared with that of vancomycin in a rat model of subcutaneously implanted tissue cages chronically infected with strain Rev1, a spontaneous methicillin-susceptible revertant of the methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus strain MRGR3, showing equivalent virulence to its parent. The MIC and MBC of daptomycin (in Mueller-Hinton broth supplemented with 50 mg/L Ca2+) or vancomycin for strain Rev1 were 1-2 and 2-4 or 1 and 2 mg/L, respectively. In vitro elimination of strain Rev1 in the presence of 50% tissue cage fluid was more rapid with daptomycin 4 mg/L compared with vancomycin. After 2 weeks of infection, viable counts of strain Rev1 averaged 6.49 log(10) cfu/mL of tissue cage fluid (n = 87). Intraperitoneal administration of daptomycin 30 mg/kg once daily, or vancomycin 50 mg/kg twice daily, produced antibiotic levels continuously above MBC. After 7 days of therapy with daptomycin or vancomycin, mean +/- s.e.m. counts of Rev1 decreased (P < 0.05) by 1.11 +/- 0.25 (n = 28) or 0.80 +/- 0.31 (n = 35) log(10) cfu/mL, respectively, compared with cages of untreated animals, but were not significantly different from each other. In daptomycin-treated rats, three cages yielded subpopulations with reduced susceptibility to daptomycin. In conclusion, a low dose regimen of daptomycin was at least equivalent to vancomycin against chronic foreign body infections due to S. aureus. Drug dosage should be adapted to obtain inflammatory fluid levels of daptomycin minimizing emergence of resistant subpopulations.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available