Effect of human serum on the bactericidal activity of daptomycin and vancomycin against staphylococcal and enterococcal isolates as determined by time-kill kinetic studies

Stratton, Charles W.; Weeks, Lyndell S.

doi:10.1016/0732-8893(90)90067-6

Cited by 23 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The inoculum effect was small, the agent was effectively bactericidal alone (unlike teicoplanin and vancomycin) (25,261), and there was no crossresistance with vancomycin and teicoplanin. Addition of serum to the medium impaired the in vitro activity (25,157,170,240). Variable but quite encouraging results were obtained in animal models.…”

Section: Treatmentmentioning

confidence: 90%

Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococci

Çetinkaya

Falk

Mayhall

2000

Clinical Microbiology Reviews

642

344

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Treatmentmentioning

confidence: 90%

Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococci

Çetinkaya

Falk

Mayhall

2000

Clinical Microbiology Reviews

642

344

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In this study, we used a strain of methicillin-resistant S. aureus, a very virulent pathogen often responsible for poor visual outcomes. The antibacterial activity of daptomycin was assessed here in vivo because of its known rapid and concentrationdependent bactericidal in vitro efficacy against S. aureus in comparison with the slow and time-dependent bactericidal in vitro efficacy of vancomycin (29). Bactericidal efficacy.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Daptomycin versus Vancomycin in a Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Endophthalmitis Rabbit Model: Bactericidal Effect, Safety, and Ocular Pharmacokinetics

Lefèvre

Saleh

Marcellin

et al. 2012

Antimicrob Agents Chemother

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Staphylococcus aureus is a frequent cause of acute endophthalmitis, and infection with this virulent bacterium is often associated with a poor visual outcome. In this study, we investigated the bactericidal efficacy and the safety of intravitreal daptomycin (DAP), a lipopeptide antibiotic with broad-spectrum activity against Gram-positive bacteria, compared with those of intravitreal vancomycin (VAN) in a methicillin-resistant S. aureus endophthalmitis rabbit model. The pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of daptomycin in the infected eyes were also studied. Rabbits were randomly divided into three treatment groups (n ‫؍‬ 8) and one untreated group (n ‫؍‬ 4), to compare the effect of single intravitreal injections of 0.2 mg and 1 mg of daptomycin (DAP 0.2 and DAP 1 groups, respectively) with that of 1 mg of intravitreal vancomycin (VAN 1 group). Vitreal aspirates were regularly collected and grading of ocular inflammation was regularly performed until euthanasia on day 7. In the DAP 0.2 group, 62.5% of the eyes were sterilized and the mean bacterial count presented a reduction of 1 log unit. In the DAP 1 and VAN 1 groups, the infection was eradicated (100% and 87.5% of eyes sterilized, respectively), with a 4-log-unit reduction of the mean bacterial count. The bactericidal efficacy in the DAP 1 group was not inferior to that in the VAN 1 group and was superior to that of the other regimens in limiting the ocular inflammation and preserving the architecture of the ocular structures (P < 0.05). The elimination half-life (t 1/2␤ ) of daptomycin was independent of the administered dose (38.8 ؎ 16.5 h and 40.9 ؎ 6.7 h, respectively, for the DAP 0.2 and DAP 1 groups) and was significantly longer than the t 1/2␤ of vancomycin (20.5 ؎ 2.0 h for the VAN 1 group) (P < 0.05). This antibiotic could therefore be considered for the treatment of intraocular infections caused by Gram-positive bacteria.

show abstract

“…However, the potential rise in minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of VAN in target organisms [4,5] makes it increasingly critical to adjust its dosage in order to ensure adequate concentrations in blood and other infected areas as well as to avoid undue toxicity [6][7][8]. Moreover, only the total fraction of VAN is routinely measured and taken into consideration for dosage adjustment in clinics [7], even though it is known that, as for most antibiotics [9], it is probably the free fraction of VAN that is critical both for diffusion into infected areas [10,11] and for binding to its bacterial target [12,13]. In recent recommendations [7] it was stated that free drug levels could be predicted based on an average binding value of ca.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%