4.7 Article

In vitro activity of BAL30072 against Burkholderia pseudomallei

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2011.03.019

关键词

Burkholderia pseudomallei; Melioidosis; Therapy; Monosulfactam; Efflux; Siderophore

资金

  1. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health [U54 AI065357]
  2. Basilea Pharmaceutica International Ltd.
  3. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [23790483] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Burkholderia pseudomallei is an intrinsically antibiotic-resistant Category B priority pathogen and the aetiological agent of melioidosis. Treatment of B. pseudomallei infection is biphasic and lengthy in order to combat the acute and chronic phases of the disease. Acute-phase treatment preferably involves an intravenous cephalosporin (ceftazidime) or a carbapenem (imipenem or meropenem). In this study, the anti-B. pseudomallei efficacy of a new monosulfactam, BAL30072, was tested against laboratory strains 1026b and 1710b and several isogenic mutant derivatives as well as a collection of clinical and environmental B. pseudomallei strains from Thailand. More than 93% of the isolates had minimal inhibitory concentrations (MICs) in the range 0.004-0.016 mu g/mL. For the laboratory strain 1026b, the MIC of BAL30072 was 0.008 mu g/mL, comparable with the MICs of 1.5 mu g/mL for ceftazidime, 0.5 mu g/mL for imipenem and 1 mu g/mL for meropenem. Time-kill curves revealed that BAL30072 was rapidly bactericidal, killing > 99% of bacteria in 2 h. BAL30072 activity was not significantly affected by efflux, it was only a marginal substrate of PenA beta-lactamase, and activity was independent of malleobactin production and transport and the ability to transport pyochelin. In summary, BAL30072 has superior in vitro activity against B. pseudomallei compared with ceftazidime, meropenem or imipenem and it is rapidly bactericidal. (c) 2011 Elsevier B. V. and the International Society of Chemotherapy. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据