4.7 Article

Evaluation of NVB302 versus vancomycin activity in an in vitro human gut model of Clostridium difficile infection

期刊

JOURNAL OF ANTIMICROBIAL CHEMOTHERAPY
卷 68, 期 1, 页码 168-176

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jac/dks359

关键词

chemostat; gut microflora; ribotype

资金

  1. Novacta Biosystems

向作者/读者索取更多资源

First-line treatment options for Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) are limited. NVB302 is a novel type B lantibiotic under evaluation for the treatment of CDI. We compared the responses to NVB302 and vancomycin when used to treat simulated CDI in an in vitro gut model. We used ceftriaxone to elicit simulated CDI in an in vitro gut model primed with human faeces. Vancomycin and NVB302 were instilled into separate gut models and the indigenous gut microbiota and C. difficile total viable counts, spores and toxin levels were monitored throughout. Ceftriaxone instillation promoted C. difficile germination and high-level toxin production. Commencement of NVB302 and vancomycin instillation reduced C. difficile total viable counts rapidly with only C. difficile spores remaining within 3 and 4 days, respectively. Cytotoxin was reduced to undetectable levels 5 and 7 days after vancomycin and NVB302 instillation commenced in vessel 2 and 3, respectively, and remained undetectable for the remainder of the experiments. C. difficile spores were unaffected by the presence of vancomycin or NVB302. NVB302 treatment was associated with faster resolution of Bacteroides fragilis group. Both NVB302 and vancomycin were effective in treating simulated CDI in an in vitro gut model. C. difficile spore recrudescence was not observed following successful treatment with either NVB302 or vancomycin. NVB302 displayed non-inferiority to vancomycin in the treatment of simulated CDI, and had less deleterious effects against B. fragilis group. NVB302 warrants further clinical investigation as a potentially novel antimicrobial agent for the treatment of CDI.

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