4.7 Article

Daptomycin and Tigecycline Have Broader Effective Dose Ranges than Vancomycin as Prophylaxis against a Staphylococcus aureus Surgical Implant Infection in Mice

期刊

ANTIMICROBIAL AGENTS AND CHEMOTHERAPY
卷 56, 期 5, 页码 2590-2597

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.06291-11

关键词

-

资金

  1. Pfizer Inc. [WS751337]
  2. H & H Lee Surgical Resident Research Scholars Program
  3. National Institutes of Health [R01-AI078910, R24-CA92865]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Vancomycin is widely used for intravenous prophylaxis against surgical implant infections. However, it is unclear whether alternative antibiotics used to treat methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections are effective as prophylactic agents. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacies of vancomycin, daptomycin, and tigecycline as prophylactic therapy against a methicillin-sensitive S. aureus (MSSA) or MRSA surgical implant infection in mice. MSSA or MRSA was inoculated into the knee joints of mice in the presence of a surgically placed medical-grade metallic implant. The efficacies of low-versus high-dose vancomycin (10 versus 110 mg/kg), daptomycin (1 versus 10 mg/kg), and tigecycline (1 versus 10 mg/kg) intravenous prophylaxis were compared using in vivo bioluminescence imaging, ex vivo bacterial counts, and biofilm formation. High-dose vancomycin, daptomycin, and tigecycline resulted in similar reductions in bacterial burden and biofilm formation. In contrast, low-dose daptomycin and tigecycline were more effective than low-dose vancomycin against the implant infection. In this mouse model of surgical implant MSSA or MRSA infection, daptomycin and tigecycline prophylaxis were effective over a broader dosage range than vancomycin. Future studies in humans will be required to determine whether these broader effective dose ranges for daptomycin and tigecycline in mice translate to improved efficacy in preventing surgical implant infections in clinical practice.

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