4.7 Article

Comparative activities of vancomycin, tigecycline and rifampin in a rat model of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus osteomyelitis

期刊

JOURNAL OF INFECTION
卷 70, 期 6, 页码 609-615

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jinf.2014.12.016

关键词

Tigecycline; Vancomycin; Rifampin; Staphylococcus aureus; Osteomyelitis

资金

  1. Pfizer, Inc.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: Implant-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections are challenging to treat. We compared antimicrobial activities in a rat model of chronic osteomyelitis in the context of retention of the foreign body without debridement. Methods: MRSA was inoculated into the proximal tibia and a wire implanted. Four weeks after infection, treatment with vancomycin 50 mg/kg every 12 h, tigecycline 14 mg/kg every 12 h, rifampin 25 mg/kg every 12 h, or the combination of vancomycin or tigecycline plus rifampin was administered intraperitoneally for 21 days. Results: MRSA was cultured from all tibias in the control group (median, 6.06 log(10) CFU/g bone). Median bacterial counts (log(10) CFU/g) at 48 h post-treatment were 6.16 for vancomycin (p = 0.753), 2.29 for vancomycin plus rifampin (p < 0.001), 5.90 for tigecycline (p = 0.270), 0.10 for tigecycline plus rifampin (p < 0.001), and 0.91 for rifampin (p = 0.044) treatment. Three deaths were observed in the tigecycline plus rifampin group. Median bacterial counts (log(10) CFU/g) at two weeks post-treatment were 5.65 for vancomycin (p = 0.6), 4.05 for vancomycin plus rifampin (p = 0.105), 5.68 for tigecycline (p = 0.401), 4.05 for tigecycline plus rifampin (p = 0.028), and 5.98 for rifampin (p = 0.297) treatment. Conclusions: Tigecycline plus rifampin resulted in a significant bacterial count decrease, an effect more prominent at 48 h than two weeks after treatment completion. Tigecycline was not well tolerated at the dose studied. (C) 2015 The British Infection Association. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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