AAC
Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] --
AAC Accepts, published online ahead of print on 10 March 2008
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Other Versions of this Article:
AAC.00638-07v1
52/5/1618    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 Yin, L.-Y.
Right arrow Articles by Schmitt-Hoffmann, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Yin, L.-Y.
Right arrow Articles by Schmitt-Hoffmann, A.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. doi:10.1128/AAC.00638-07
Copyright (c) 2008, American Society for Microbiology and/or the Listed Authors/Institutions. All Rights Reserved.

Efficacies of Ceftobiprole Medocaril and Comparators in a Rabbit Model of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Osteomyelitis

Li-Yan Yin, Jason H. Calhoun*, Jacob K. Thomas, Stuart Shapiro, and Anne Schmitt-Hoffmann

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri; Basilea Pharmaceutica AG, Basel, Switzerland

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. Email: calhounj{at}health.missouri.edu.


   Abstract

The pharmacokinetics and distribution into bone tissue of ceftobiprole in uninfected New Zealand white rabbits were determined after subcutaneous administration of prodrug ceftobiprole medocaril. Serum exposure (Cmax, Ctrough, AUC) to ceftobiprole at 20 and 80 mg/kg was dose-proportional, and there was no accumulation of ceftobiprole following repeated q6h injections of the antibiotic. Ceftobiprole titers in tibial matrix and marrow were 3.2 ± 1.3 µg/g and 11.2 ± 6.5 µg/g, respectively, in uninfected animals treated with 20 mg/kg of antibiotic; and 13.4 ± 7.3 µg/g and 66.3 ± 43.2 µg/g, respectively, in uninfected animals treated with 80 mg/kg of antibiotic. No differences in ceftobiprole titer were observed between right and left tibiae for either bone matrix or marrow. The efficacies of four weeks of treatment with ceftobiprole (40 mg/kg sc q6h), vancomycin (30 mg/kg sc q12h), or linezolid (60 mg/kg po q8h) were compared using a rabbit model of MRSA tibial osteomyelitis. Following ceftobiprole treatment bacterial titers in all infected left tibiae from evaluable rabbits were below the level of detection, whereas only 73% of infected left tibiae from vancomycin- or linezolid-treated animals had bacterial titers below the level of detection; mean ceftobiprole titers were 3-5 times higher in infected left tibiae than in uninfected right tibiae. These results indicate that ceftobiprole provided effective parenteral treatment of osteomyelitis in this rabbit model.







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

Copyright © 2008 by the American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.