In vitro and in vivo activity of combination antimicrobial agents on Haemophilus ducreyi
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Development of single dose antibiotic treatments for chancroid has been followed by drug-resistant Haemophilus ducreyi in endemic areas. We examined the activity and interactions of antimicrobial agents and combinations against H. ducreyi. METHODS: We evaluated the in vitro susceptibility of three virulent strains of H. ducreyi to ceftriaxone, azithromycin, rifabutin and streptomycin, and each two-drug combination by the agar dilution method. We then tested each two-antibiotic combination for activity by the chequerboard method. Lastly, we chose the antibiotic combination with the lowest fractional inhibitory concentration index (FICI) and tested combined sub-therapeutic doses, the highest doses which had no effect alone on lesion healing compared with controls, for in vivo interaction in the temperature-dependent rabbit model of H. ducreyi infection. RESULTS: Each H. ducreyi strain was susceptible in vitro to each antibiotic and two-antibiotic combination, and combined ceftriaxone and streptomycin had the lowest FICI at 0.63. In five treated animals versus three untreated controls, combined sub-therapeutic doses of ceftriaxone (0.05 mg/kg) and streptomycin (10 mg/kg) reduced mean (SD) duration of culture positivity from 7.3 (1.1) to 2.6 (1.7) days (P<0.001), time to 50% reduction in lesion size from 9.7 (1.5) to 5.8 (0.8) days (P<0.005), and time to resolution of ulcer from 11.7 (2.3) to 6.6 (1.7) days (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Ceftriaxone and streptomycin have in vivo synergic interaction against H. ducreyi lesions in the temperature-dependent rabbit model of infection. Antibiotic combinations may be evaluated clinically as single-dose therapy for chancroid.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".