AAC
Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Supplemental material
Right arrow Other Versions of this Article:
AAC.01517-06v1
51/4/1508    most recent
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Credito, K.
Right arrow Articles by Appelbaum, P. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Credito, K.
Right arrow Articles by Appelbaum, P. C.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, April 2007, p. 1508-1511, Vol. 51, No. 4
0066-4804/07/$08.00+0     doi:10.1128/AAC.01517-06
Copyright © 2007, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

Antistaphylococcal Activity of DX-619 Alone and in Combination with Vancomycin, Teicoplanin, and Linezolid Assessed by Time-Kill Synergy Testing{triangledown} ,{dagger}

Kim Credito, Genrong Lin, and Peter C. Appelbaum*

Department of Pathology, Hershey Medical Center, P.O. Box 850, Hershey, Pennsylvania 17033

Received 4 December 2006/ Returned for modification 2 January 2007/ Accepted 17 January 2007


   ABSTRACT
Top
 Abstract
Text
 References
 
Time-kill synergy studies testing in vitro activity of DX-619 alone and with added vancomycin, teicoplanin, or linezolid against 101 Staphylococcus aureus strains showed synergy between DX-619 and teicoplanin at 12 to 24 h in 72 strains and between DX-619 and vancomycin in 28 strains. No synergy was found with linezolid, and no antagonism was observed with any combination.


   TEXT
Top
 Abstract
 Text
References
 
The emergence of methicillin- and quinolone-resistant staphylococci, and recently glycopeptide-intermediate staphylococci, as well as the propensity of these organisms to cause serious systemic infections in immunocompromised hosts, necessitates other therapeutic modalities (10, 12, 16, 17, 21, 23). During 2002, two clinical strains of vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (VRSA) carrying vanA, one from Detroit, MI, and one from our hospital, were isolated. There are now a total of six VRSA strains: four from Michigan, one from Pennsylvania and one from New York (2, 3, 15, 22; M. Rybak, unpublished data).

In contrast, vancomycin-intermediate S. aureus (VISA) strains, first described in Japan by Hiramatsu (13), have been much more widely reported, and hospital colonization leading to systemic infections with these strains has recently been reported (9, 18). A recent lowering of the vancomycin susceptibility breakpoint to ≤2 µg/ml (6) will doubtless result in an even higher reported rate for these organisms, whose incidence is almost certainly under-reported. It also seems that some VISA strains have higher daptomycin MICs than is the case with vancomycin-susceptible strains (7).

The situation is further complicated by the emergence, both in the United States and elsewhere, of virulent clonal (usually USA300 or USA400) Panton-Valentine leukocidin-associated community-acquired methicillin-resistant S. aureus strains (MRSA), which primarily cause abscesses but which have on occasion produced life-threatening and lethal diseases (1, 10, 11). Whether this toxin is the major virulence determinant in community-acquired MRSA disease is not clear at the present time (24).

Most methicillin-resistant staphylococci are also resistant to available quinolones such as ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin, moxifloxacin, and gemifloxacin (10, 14, 19-21, 23). Thus, the latter compounds may not be safely used in empirical therapy of patients with methicillin-resistant staphylococcal infections. DX-619 is a new des-F(6)-quinolone with excellent activity against gram-positive organisms. In a recent study from our laboratory, DX-619 was shown to be potent and bactericidal against quinolone-susceptible and -resistant S. aureus strains, with a low propensity to develop resistance (2).

A previous preliminary study showed synergy between clinafloxacin and glycopeptides against S. aureus by time-kill methodology (5). In the present study, we used time-kill methodology to test the possible synergistic activity of DX-619 when combined with vancomycin, teicoplanin, and linezolid against 101 S. aureus strains with various phenotypes.

The bacterial strains used in this study were all nonduplicate recent clinical isolates (2002 to date) isolated at the Hershey Medical Center and Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, from wounds, blood, and sputum and identified by standard methods. The 101 organisms tested comprised (i) 50 (including 2 VISA strains) methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA) strains, 46 of which were quinolone susceptible and 4 of which were quinolone resistant and (ii) 51 MRSA strains. A total of 37 MRSA strains were also quinolone resistant and included 4 VISA and 3 VRSA strains (1 VISA strain and 1 VRSA strain were isolated at the Hershey Medical Center). Strains were stored frozen at –70°C in double-strength skim milk (Difco, Inc., Detroit, MI) until use. DX-619 powder was obtained from Daiichi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (Tokyo, Japan), and other compounds were obtained from their respective manufacturers.

MICs were predetermined by macrodilution in cation-adjusted Mueller-Hinton broth (BBL Microbiology Systems, Cockeysville, MD) according to standard methodology (6). All strains were tested by time-kill methodology, with each compound alone as described previously (5). Concentrations one to two dilutions below the MIC were chosen for synergy testing. Viability counts in synergy tests were performed at 0, 3, 6, 12, and 24 h in a shaking water bath at 35°C, with final inocula between 5 x 105 and 5 x 106 CFU/ml. Drug carryover was addressed by dilution as described previously (5). Synergy was defined as a ≥2-log10 decrease in CFU/ml between the combination and its most active component after 3, 6, 12, and 24 h, the number of surviving organisms in the presence of the combination being ≥2 log10 below the starting inoculum at 0 h. At least one of the drugs had to be present at a concentration that did not significantly affect the growth curve of the test organism when used alone (5).

Compiled results are presented in Table 1, and data for individual strains is provided in the supplemental material. The MICs of the drugs alone were 0.004 to 2 µg/ml (DX-619), 0.5 to >128 µg/ml (vancomycin), 0.25 to 16 µg/ml (teicoplanin), and 1 to 4 µg/ml (linezolid). The results of synergy time-kill analyses at 12 and 24 h are presented and only for DX-619 plus vancomycin (DX-619+vancomycin) and DX-619+teicoplanin because all combinations at 3 and 6 h and all combinations with DX-619+linezolid were additive.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		TABLE 1. Combined results of MIC and time-kill synergy tests

 
Eight of the fifty (16%) MSSA strains showed synergy between DX-619 and vancomycin at 12 h, and twelve of fifty strains (24%), including one quinolone-resistant strain, showed synergy between DX-619 and vancomycin at 24 h. Ten of fifty MSSA strains (20%) showed synergy between DX-619 and teicoplanin at 12 h, and thirty-five of fifty MSSA strains (70%), including three quinolone-resistant strains, showed synergy between DX-619 and teicoplanin at 24 h. The two methicillin-susceptible VISA strains showed additive activity with all combinations.

One of thirty-six (3%) quinolone-resistant MRSA strains showed synergy between DX-619 and vancomycin at 12 h, and twelve of thirty-six strains (33%), including one VISA strain and one Hershey VRSA strain, showed synergy at 24 h between DX-619 and vancomycin. One of the thirty-six strains (a VRSA isolate) was not tested with DX-619 and vancomycin (vancomycin MIC of >128 µg/ml). Five of thirty-seven (13%) quinolone-resistant MRSA (including two VRSA strains, one being the Hershey strain) showed synergy between DX-619 and teicoplanin at 12 h, and twenty-two of thirty-seven quinolone-resistant MRSA strains (59%), including the two previously mentioned VRSA strains, showed synergy between DX-619 and teicoplanin at 24 h. The Hershey VISA strain did not show synergy.

One of fourteen quinolone-susceptible MRSA strains (7%) showed synergy between DX-619 and vancomycin after 24 h. One of fourteen (7%) quinolone-susceptible MRSA strains showed synergy between DX-619 and teicoplanin at 12 h, and twelve of fourteen (86%) quinolone-susceptible MRSA strains showed synergy between DX-619 and teicoplanin at 24 h. The synergy between DX-619 with both vancomycin and teicoplanin is depicted graphically in Fig. 1.


Figure 1
View larger version (18K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		FIG. 1. Time-kill graphs. (A) DX-619/vancomycin quinolone-resistant MRSA strain 019; (B) DX-619/teicoplanin-quinolone-resistant MRSA strain 019; (C) DX-619/vancomycin-VRSA strain 510; (D) DX-619/teicoplanin-VRSA strain 510.

 
Additive results were obtained with the five VISA strains and one VRSA strain tested with all combinations at all time points. All other combinations (including all between DX-619 and linezolid) were additive, and no antagonism with any combination was observed. The bacteriostatic nature of linezolid is well known (4, 8).

The results of this study confirm the potency of DX-619 against all S. aureus strains tested irrespective of phenotype (2). DX-619 and teicoplanin were synergistic at sub-MICs of DX-619 in 69 of the 101 strains (68%) after 24 h. These strains comprised 35 MSSA strains; of these 3 were quinolone resistant, 12 were MRSA and quinolone susceptible, and 22 were MRSA and quinolone resistant (including 2 VRSA) strains.

In contrast, only 25 of 100 strains (25%) showed synergy between DX-619 and vancomycin after 24 h. We have no explanation for why DX-619 was more synergistic in combination with teicoplanin than in combination with vancomycin. An examination of the data in the supplemental material did not reveal any obvious correlation between strains showing synergy between DX-619 and one or both glycopeptides. Although clear in vitro synergy between DX-619 and teicoplanin was seen in most strains studied, antimicrobial interactions are known to be strain dependent, and generalizations based upon our results should be avoided, at least for the moment.

In summary, combinations between DX-619 and teicoplanin and (in some cases) vancomycin showed in vitro synergy, as determined by time-kill analyses, against S. aureus strains of all resistotypes. The significance of these findings requires clinical confirmation.


   ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
This study was supported by a grant by Daiichi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan.

We thank George McCracken and Susana Chavez-Bueno for kindly providing some of the strains.


   FOOTNOTES
 
* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Department of Pathology, Hershey Medical Center, P.O. Box 850, Hershey, PA 17033. Phone: (717) 531-5113. Fax: (717) 531-7953. E-mail: pappelbaum{at}psu.edu Back

{triangledown} Published ahead of print on 29 January 2007. Back

{dagger} Supplemental material for this article may be found at http://aac.asm.org/. Back


   REFERENCES
Top
 Abstract
 Text
 References
 

  1. Adern, P. V., C. P. Montgomery, A. N. Husain, T. K. Koogler, V. Arangelovich, M. Humilier, S. Boyle-Vavra, and R. S. Daum. 2005. Staphylococcus aureus and the Waterhouse Friederichsen syndrome in children. N. Engl. J. Med. 353:1245-1251.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Bogdanovich, T., D. Esel, L. M. Kelly, B. Bozdogan, K. Credito, G. Lin, K. Smith, L. M. Ednie, D. B. Hoellman, and P. C. Appelbaum. 2005. Antistaphylococcal activity of DX-619, a new des-F(6)-quinolone, compared to those of other agents. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 49:3325-3333.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Bozdogan, B., D. Esel, C. Whitener, F. A. Browne, and P. C. Appelbaum. 2003. Antibacterial susceptibility of a vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus strain isolated at the Hershey Medical Center. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 52:864-868.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  4. Cercenado, E., F. Garcia-Garrote, and E. E. Bouza. 2001. In-vitro activity of linezolid against multiply resistant gram-positive clinical isolates. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 47:77-81.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. Clark, C. L., M. R. Jacobs, and P. C. Appelbaum. 1999. Activities of clinafloxacin, alone and in combination with other compounds, against 45 gram-positive and -negative organisms for which clinafloxacin MICs are high. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 43:2295-2298.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  6. Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute. 2006. Methods for dilution antimicrobial susceptibility tests for bacteria that grow aerobically. Approved standard M7-A7, 7th ed. Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute, Wayne, PA.
  7. Cui, L., E. Tominaga, H-M. Neoh, and K. Hiramatsu. 2006. Correlation between reduced susceptibility and vancomycin resistance in vancomycin-intermediate Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 50:1079-1082.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  8. Cuny, C., and W. Witte. 2000. In vitro activity of linezolid against staphylococci. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 6:331-333.[CrossRef][Medline]
  9. De Lassence, A., N. Hidri, J.-F. Timsit, M.-L. Joly-Guillou, G. Thiery, A. Boyer, P. Lable, A. Blivet, H. Kalinowski, Y. Martin, J.-P. Lajonchere, and D. Dreyfuss. 2006. Control and outcome of a large outbreak of colonization and infection with glycopeptide-intermediate Staphylococcus aureus in an intensive care unit. Clin. Infect. Dis. 42:170-178.[CrossRef][Medline]
  10. Deresinski, S. 2005. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: an evolutionary, epidemiologic, and therapeutic odyssey. Clin. Infect. Dis. 40:562-573.[CrossRef][Medline]
  11. Francis, J. S., M. C. Doherty, U. Lopatin, C. P. Johnston, G. Sinha, T. Ross, M. Cai, N. N. Hansel, T. Perl, J. R. Ticehurst, K. Carroll, D. L. Thomas, E. Nuermberger, and J. G. Bartlett. 2005. Severe community-onset pneumonia in healthy adults caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus carrying the Panton-Valentine leukocidin genes. Clin. Infect. Dis. 40:100-107.[CrossRef][Medline]
  12. Hershow, R. C., W. F. Khayr, and P. C. Schreckenberger. 1998. Ciprofloxacin resistance in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: associated factors and resistance to other antibiotics. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 5:213-220.
  13. Hiramatsu, K. 1998. The emergence of Staphylococcus aureus with reduced susceptibility to vancomycin in Japan. Am. J. Med. 104:7S-10S.[CrossRef][Medline]
  14. Horii, T., Y. Suzuki, A. Monji, M. Morita, H. Muramatsu, Y. Kondo, M. Doi, A. Takeshita, T. Kanno, and M. Maekawa. 2003. Detection of mutations in quinolone resistance-determining regions in levofloxacin- and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: effects of the mutations on fluoroquinolone MICs. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 46:139-145.[CrossRef][Medline]
  15. Kacica, M., and L. C. McDonald. 2004. Vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus-New York. Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 53:322-323.[Medline]
  16. Nichols, R. L. 1999. Optimal treatment of complicated skin and soft tissue infections. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 44:19-23.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  17. Pankuch, G. A., G. Lin, D. B. Hoellman, C. E. Good. M. R. Jacobs, and P. C. Appelbaum. 2006. Activity of retapamulin against Streptococcus pyogenes and Staphylococcus aureus evaluated by agar dilution, microdilution, E-test, and disk diffusion methodologies. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 50:1727-1730.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  18. Sancak, B., S. Ercis, D. Menemenlioglu, S. Colakoglu, and G. Hascelik. 2005. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus heterogeneously resistant to vancomycin in a Turkish university hospital. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 56:519-523.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  19. Schmitz, F.-J., A. Fluit, S. Brisse, J. Verhoef, K. Koher, and D. Milatovic. 1999. Molecular epidemiology of quinolone resistance and comparative in vitro activities of new quinolones against European Staphylococcus aureus isolates. FEMS Immunol. Med. Microbiol. 26:281-287.[CrossRef][Medline]
  20. Schmitz, F. J., A. C. Fluit, D. Hafner, A. Beeck, M. Perdikouli, M. Boos, S. Scheuring, J. Verhoef, K. Kohrer, and C. von Eiff. 2000. Development of resistance to ciprofloxacin, rifampin, and mupirocin in methicillin-susceptible and -resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 44:3229-3231.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  21. Sierra, J. M., F. Marco, J. Ruiz, M. T. Jimenez de Anta, and J. Vila. 2002. Correlation between the activity of different fluoroquinolones and the presence of mechanisms of quinolone resistance in epidemiologically related and unrelated strains of methicillin-susceptible and -resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 8:781-790.[CrossRef][Medline]
  22. Tenover, F. C., L. M. Weigel, P. C. Appelbaum, L. K. McDougal, J. Chaitram, S. McAllister, N. Clark, G. Killgore, C. M. O'Hara, L. Jevitt, J. B. Patel, and B. Bozdogan. 2004. Vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolate from a patient in Pennsylvania. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 48:275-280.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  23. Voss, A., D. Milatovic, C. Wallrauch-Schwarz, V. T. Rosdahl, and I. Braveny. 1994. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Europe. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 13:50-55.[CrossRef][Medline]
  24. Voyich, J. M., M. Otto, B. Mathema, K. R. Braughton, A. R. Whitney, D. Welty, R. D. Long, D. W. Dorward, D. J. Gardner, G. Lina, B. N. Kreiswirth, and F. R. DeLeo. 2006. Is Panton-Valentine leukocidin the major virulence determinant in community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus disease? J. Infect. Dis. 194:1761-1770.[CrossRef][Medline]

Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, April 2007, p. 1508-1511, Vol. 51, No. 4
0066-4804/07/$08.00+0     doi:10.1128/AAC.01517-06
Copyright © 2007, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.




This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Supplemental material
Right arrow Other Versions of this Article:
AAC.01517-06v1
51/4/1508    most recent
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Credito, K.
Right arrow Articles by Appelbaum, P. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Credito, K.
Right arrow Articles by Appelbaum, P. C.

Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
Clin. Vaccine Immunol. Clin. Microbiol. Rev.
J. Clin. Microbiol. ALL ASM JOURNALS