4.7 Article

Activity of RBx 11760, a novel biaryl oxazolidinone, against Clostridium difficile

期刊

JOURNAL OF ANTIMICROBIAL CHEMOTHERAPY
卷 66, 期 5, 页码 1087-1095

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jac/dkr033

关键词

CDI; sporulation; toxin; hamster infection

资金

  1. Ranbaxy Research Laboratories, Gurgaon

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: RBx 11760, a novel oxazolidinone, was investigated for in vitro and in vivo activity against Clostridium difficile. Methods: The in vitro activity of RBx 11760 and three other agents against 50 diverse C. difficile clinical isolates and other obligate anaerobic bacteria was determined. The effect of RBx 11760 on sporulation and toxin production was determined against different C. difficile isolates. We used a hamster infection model to investigate the efficacy of RBx 11760, vancomycin and metronidazole. The mechanism of action of RBx 11760 against C. difficile ATCC 43255 was determined by macromolecular synthesis inhibition. Results: RBx 11760 MICs were in the range of 0.5-1 mg/L for C. difficile isolates, and it demonstrated concentration-dependent killing of C. difficile ATCC 43255 and C. difficile 6387 up to 2-4xMIC (1-2 mg/L). RBx 11760, at concentrations as low as 0.25-0.5 mg/L, resulted in a significant reduction in de novo toxin production as well as sporulation in different C. difficile isolates. In contrast, vancomycin, metronidazole and linezolid had little or no effect on toxin production and appeared to promote the formation of spores. In the hamster infection model, treatment with RBx 11760 resulted in prolonged survival of animals as compared with vancomycin or metronidazole, which correlated well with the histopathology results. Macromolecular labelling results suggest that RBx 11760 is a potent inhibitor of bacterial protein synthesis. Conclusions: RBx 11760 showed excellent in vitro and in vivo activity against C. difficile, and it could be a promising novel candidate for future drug development against C. difficile infection.

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