4.7 Article

Daptomycin is effective in treatment of experimental endocarditis due to methicillin-resistant and glycopeptide-intermediate Staphylococcus aureus

期刊

ANTIMICROBIAL AGENTS AND CHEMOTHERAPY
卷 52, 期 7, 页码 2538-2543

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.00510-07

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Daptomycin is a lipopeptide antibiotic with potent in vitro activity against gram-positive cocci, including Staphylococcus aureus. This study evaluated the in vitro and in vivo efficacies of daptomycin against two clinical isolates: methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) 277 (vancomycin MIC, 2 mu g/ml) and glycopeptide-intermediate S. aureus (GISA) ATCC 700788 (vancomycin MIC, 8 mu g/ml). Time-kill experiments demonstrated that daptomycin was bactericidal in vitro against these two strains. The in vivo activity of daptomycin (6 mg/kg of body weight every 24 h) was evaluated by using a rabbit model of infective endocarditis and was compared with the activities of a high-dose (HD) vancomycin regimen (1 g intravenously every 6 h), the recommended dose (RD) of vancomycin regimen (1 g intravenously every 12 h) for 48 h, and no treatment (as a control). Daptomycin was significantly more effective than the vancomycin RD in reducing the density of bacteria in the vegetations for the MRSA strains (0 [interquartile range, 0 to 1.5] versus 2 [interquartile range, 0 to 5.6] log CFU/g vegetation; P = 0.02) and GISA strains (2 [interquartile range, 0 to 2] versus 6.6 [interquartile range, 2.0 to 6.9] log CFU/g vegetation; P < 0.01) studied. In addition, daptomycin sterilized more MRSA vegetations than the vancomycin RD (13/18 [72%] versus 7/20 [35%]; P = 0.02) and sterilized more GISA vegetations than either vancomycin regimen (12/19 [63%] versus 4/20 [20%]; P < 0.01). No statistically significant difference between the vancomycin HD and the vancomycin RD for MRSA treatment was noted. These results support the use of daptomycin for the treatment of aortic valve endocarditis caused by GISA and MRSA.

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