4.7 Article

Optimized Background Regimen for Treatment of Active Tuberculosis with the Next-Generation Benzothiazinone Macozinone (PBTZ169)

期刊

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.00840-18

关键词

macozinone; drug combination; tuberculosis

资金

  1. European Community's Seventh Framework Programme [260872]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The efficacy of the standardized four-drug regimen (comprising isoniazid, rifampin, pyrazinamide, and ethambutol) for the treatment of tuberculosis (TB) is menaced by the emergence of multidrug-resistant (MDR) and extensively drugresistant (XDR) strains of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Intensive efforts have been made to develop new antibiotics or to repurpose old drugs, and several of these are currently being evaluated in clinical trials for their antitubercular activity. Among the new candidate drugs is macozinone (MCZ), the piperazine-containing benzothiazinone PBTZ169, which is currently being evaluated in phase I/II clinical trials. Here, we determined the in vitro and in vivo activity of MCZ in combination with a range of anti-TB drugs in order to design a new regimen against active TB. Two-drug combinations with MCZ were tested against M. tuberculosis using checkerboard and CFU enumeration after drug exposure assays. MCZ was observed to have no interactions with all first- and second-line anti-TB drugs. At the MIC of each drug, MCZ with either bedaquiline (BDQ), clofazimine (CLO), delamanid (DMD), or sutezolid (STZ) reduced the bacterial burden by 2 logs compared to that achieved with the drugs alone, indicating synergism. MCZ also displayed synergism with clomiphene (CLM), a potential inhibitor of the undecaprenyl pyrophosphate synthase (UppS) in mycobacteria. For all the other drugs tested in combination with MCZ, no synergistic activity was observed. Neither antagonism nor increased cytotoxicity was found for most combinations, suggesting that MCZ could be added to different TB treatment regimens without any significant adverse effects.

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