MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2550673090 · doi:10.1093/jac/dkw451

Comparative<i>in vitro</i>activity of oritavancin and other agents against vancomycin-susceptible and -resistant enterococci

2016· letter· en· W2550673090 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Debora Sweeney, A. Stoneburner, Dean L. Shinabarger, Francis F. Arhin, Adam Belley, Greg Moeck, Chris M. Pillar

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy · 2016
Typeletter
Langueen
DomaineBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
ThématiqueAntibiotic Resistance in Bacteria
Établissements canadiensMicrosemi (Canada)
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésVancomycin-Resistant EnterococciVancomycinMicrobiologyEnterococcusGram-positive bacterial infectionsIn vitroAntibioticsChemistryBiologyMedicineBacteriaStaphylococcus aureusBiochemistryGenetics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Sir, Antibiotic research has focused on discovering agents with activity against MDR pathogens (e.g. ESKAPE pathogens1), including VRE, which along with Staphylococcusaureus are commonly isolated from healthcare-associated infections.2 Several new agents have been approved for the treatment of skin and skin structure infections caused by MRSA and enterococci, including oxazolidinones (linezolid and tedizolid), lipoglycopeptides (oritavancin, dalbavancin and telavancin), a cyclic lipopeptide (daptomycin), a glycylcycline (tigecycline) and an anti-MRSA cephalosporin (ceftaroline). Lipoglycopeptides, though active against vancomycin-susceptible enterococci (VSE), have variable activity against VRE, with oritavancin being the sole agent maintaining potent activity against VanA-type VRE.3 We report here a direct comparison of the in vitro activity of lipoglycopeptides and other skin agents against vancomycin-susceptible and -resistant Enterococcusfaecalis (VSEfa and VREfa) and Enterococcusfaecium (VSEfm and VREfm). Comparative evaluations included MIC and MBC determinations and time–kill kinetics. Since variation in inoculum density has been shown to impact the activity of several of these agents against S. aureus,4,5 time–kill kinetics were assessed at both standard and high inoculum densities. The evaluated isolates consisted of 74 random non-duplicate clinical isolates of VSEfa, VREfa, VSEfm and VREfm from the Micromyx repository (Kalamazoo, MI, USA) and The Medicines Company (Ville Saint Laurent, Quebec, Canada). VanA-phenotype (vancomycin and teicoplanin resistant) and VanB-phenotype (vancomycin resistant and teicoplanin susceptible) VRE were selected based on prior glycopeptide susceptibility test history. Agents were handled per CLSI (formerly NCCLS) guidelines and had results within CLSI quality control ranges during testing.6 Evaluations of lipoglycopeptides incorporated polysorbate 80 at a final concentration of 0.002% (v/v). MIC and MBC values were determined in accordance with standard CLSI methods.6–8 The time–kill kinetics of select isolates (one per phenotype evaluated) at standard inoculum (∼5 × 105 cfu/mL) and high inoculum (∼5 × 107 cfu/mL) were determined as described by Arhin et al.9 using a method derived from the CLSI8 for agents at their fCmax (calculated from the respective prescribing information as 16 mg/L for oritavancin, dalbavancin, linezolid, vancomycin and ceftaroline, 8 mg/L for telavancin, 4 mg/L for daptomycin and 1 mg/L for tedizolid). The activity of the tested agents against enterococci is summarized by species and phenotype in Table 1. Among E. faecalis, VSEfa were susceptible to all agents with the lipoglycopeptides having the most potent activity by MIC90. Ceftaroline and oritavancin were the only consistently bactericidal agents against VSEfa based on the proportion of isolates with MBC:MIC ratios of ≤4. Based on MIC90, oritavancin, daptomycin, linezolid, tedizolid and ceftaroline maintained potent activity against VanA VREfa. Ceftaroline maintained bactericidal activity against VanA VREfa, while the other agents typically had MBC:MIC ratios >4. Summary of the in vitro activity of evaluated agents against enterococci by species and vancomycin phenotype (n = 74) MBC:MIC ratio only reported for isolates where defined MBC and MIC values allowed for determination of whether the MBC:MIC ratio was either ≤4 or >4. Time to 3 log kill in hours for standard/high inoculum density (n = 1 isolate/phenotype); a dash indicates that a 3 log kill was not observed during the course of the experiment (24 h). For the evaluated VSEfm isolate at standard inoculum density, time to 2.9 log kill was reported (based on the starting inoculum of 4.9 log cfu/mL and a lower limit of detection of 2 log cfu/mL for the assay). Summary of the in vitro activity of evaluated agents against enterococci by species and vancomycin phenotype (n = 74) MBC:MIC ratio only reported for isolates where defined MBC and MIC values allowed for determination of whether the MBC:MIC ratio was either ≤4 or >4. Time to 3 log kill in hours for standard/high inoculum density (n = 1 isolate/phenotype); a dash indicates that a 3 log kill was not observed during the course of the experiment (24 h). For the evaluated VSEfm isolate at standard inoculum density, time to 2.9 log kill was reported (based on the starting inoculum of 4.9 log cfu/mL and a lower limit of detection of 2 log cfu/mL for the assay). Against VSEfm and VREfm (VanA and VanB phenotypes), oritavancin was the most potent agent evaluated based on MIC90. All agents, excluding ceftaroline, which was largely inactive against E. faecium, had potent activity against VSEfm by MIC90. Oritavancin, daptomycin, linezolid and tedizolid maintained potent activity against VREfm. Oritavancin was ≥16-fold more potent by MIC90 than the comparator lipoglycopeptides against VREfm. Against VSEfm, oritavancin and daptomycin were the only consistently bactericidal agents based on the proportion of isolates with MBC:MIC ratios of ≤4. Daptomycin maintained bactericidal activity by MBC:MIC ratio against VanA and VanB VREfm. Consistent trends in bactericidal activity were apparent for each agent by time–kill at fCmax across the evaluated E. faecalis (one isolate each of VSEfa and VanA VREfa) and E. faecium (one isolate each of VSEfm, VanA VREfm and VanB VREfm) isolates. At the standard inoculum density, oritavancin and daptomycin were rapidly bactericidal with 3 log killing typically achieved within 0.25 and 4 h, respectively, with singular exceptions (4 h for oritavancin and 1 h for daptomycin against the VanA VREfa isolate). Telavancin was typically bactericidal, with 3 log killing observed at 24 h at the standard inoculum density with the exception of the VanB VREfm isolate, as was ceftaroline for E. faecalis but not E. faecium. Vancomycin, dalbavancin, tedizolid and linezolid did not achieve 3 log killing at the standard inoculum density for any of the evaluated E. faecalis or E. faecium isolates. Only oritavancin maintained bactericidal activity at the high inoculum density, with similar kill kinetics to those observed at the standard inoculum density. Few available agents exist for treating VRE infections despite their prevalence and associated mortality and morbidity.10 Among agents with activity against enterococci, oritavancin, daptomycin, linezolid and tedizolid maintained potent activity against VanA/VanB VRE isolates. Both daptomycin and oritavancin exhibited rapid bactericidal activity at fCmax against VSE and VRE at standard inoculum densities, but only oritavancin maintained rapid bactericidal activity at high inoculum densities. Maintaining bactericidal activity at high inoculum density may be relevant in the context of enterococcal infections where dense foci of pathogens may be present locally (e.g. endocarditis and osteomyelitis). Thus, further investigation into the clinical utility of both daptomycin and oritavancin against VRE infections is warranted. This work was supported by The Medicines Company. F. A., A. B. and G. M. participated in the design and reporting of this research and are salaried employees and stockholders at The Medicines Company, which funded this research and markets oritavancin. All other authors: none to declare.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Expérimental (laboratoire) · Signal consensuel: Expérimental (laboratoire)
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,003
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,009

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,014
Tête enseignante GPT0,263
Écart entre enseignants0,249 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeExpérimental (laboratoire)
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations19
Publié2016
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Antimicrobial ChemotherapyMême sujetAntibiotic Resistance in BacteriaTravaux en français237 207