4.7 Article

Daptomycin-Oxacillin Combinations in Treatment of Experimental Endocarditis Caused by Daptomycin-Nonsusceptible Strains of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus with Evolving Oxacillin Susceptibility (the Seesaw Effect)

期刊

ANTIMICROBIAL AGENTS AND CHEMOTHERAPY
卷 54, 期 8, 页码 3161-3169

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.00487-10

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [AI-39108, AI-40481]
  2. Cubist Pharmaceuticals

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In vivo development of daptomycin resistance (DAP(r)) among Staphylococcus aureus strains, especially methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) strains, in conjunction with clinical treatment failures, has emerged as a major problem. This has raised the question of DAP-based combination regimens to enhance efficacy against such strains. We studied five recent DAP-susceptible (DAP(s))/DAP(r) clinical MRSA strain pairs obtained from patients who failed DAP monotherapy regimens, as well as one DAP(s)/DAP(r) MRSA strain pair in which the resistant strain was generated by in vitro passage in DAP. Of note, we identified a DAP-oxacillin (OX) seesaw phenomenon in vitro in which development of DAP(r) was accompanied by a concomitant fall in OX resistance, as demonstrated by 3- to 4-fold decreases in the OX MIC, a susceptibility shift by population analyses, and enhanced early killing by OX in time-kill assays. In addition, the combination of DAP and OX exerted modest improvement in in vitro bactericidal effects. Using an experimental model of infective endocarditis and two DAP(s)/DAP(r) strain pairs, we demonstrated that (i) OX monotherapy was ineffective at clearing DAP(r) strains from any target tissue in this model (heart valve, kidneys, or spleen) and (ii) DAP-OX combination therapy was highly effective in DAP(r) strain clearances from these organs. The mechanism(s) of the seesaw effect remains to be defined but does not appear to involve excision of the staphylococcal cassette chromosome mec (SCCmec) that carries mecA.

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