Skip to main content
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems
  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About AAC
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • AAC Podcast
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems

User menu

  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
publisher-logosite-logo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About AAC
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • AAC Podcast
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
Experimental Therapeutics

In Vitro Killing of Community-Associated Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus with Drug Combinations

Samuel A. Shelburne, Daniel M. Musher, Kristina Hulten, Heather Ceasar, Michael Y. Lu, Imran Bhaila, Richard J. Hamill
Samuel A. Shelburne
1Section of Infectious Diseases, Veterans Affairs Medical Center
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Daniel M. Musher
1Section of Infectious Diseases, Veterans Affairs Medical Center
2Section of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kristina Hulten
3Section of Infectious Diseases, Department of Pediatrics
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Heather Ceasar
2Section of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michael Y. Lu
2Section of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Imran Bhaila
2Section of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Richard J. Hamill
1Section of Infectious Diseases, Veterans Affairs Medical Center
2Section of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: richard.hamill@med.va.gov
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.48.10.4016-4019.2004
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

This study employs time-kill techniques to examine the most common drug combinations used in the therapy of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections, vancomycin plus either gentamicin or rifampin. Community-associated MRSA were more likely to be synergistically inhibited by combinations of vancomycin and gentamicin versus vancomycin alone compared to inhibition associated with hospital-acquired strains.

Despite being considered the drug of choice for serious methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections, vancomycin therapy for MRSA often yields less than ideal results compared to that of β-lactam treatment of methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA) (6, 7, 19, 22, 28). The suboptimal response of MRSA infections to vancomycin often leads clinicians to add a second or even third antimicrobial, the most widely used of which have been rifampin and aminoglycosides (5, 15), despite discordant in vitro studies and the lack of supporting clinical data (13, 21, 27). Over the past several years, there has been a dramatic rise in the isolation of MRSA from patients who have no recognized link to the hospital (2, 10, 24). Community-associated (CA)-MRSA strains are often sensitive to a much broader array of antimicrobials other than β-lactams than are hospital-acquired (HA)-MRSA strains (23, 29).

We hypothesized that the greater susceptibility of CA-MRSA to gentamicin and rifampin would result in increased bactericidal activity, compared to that of HA-MRSA, when these drugs were combined with vancomycin. The purposes of this investigation were (i) to study the differential effects of combination therapy of vancomycin plus gentamicin or vancomycin plus rifampin versus vancomycin alone in CA-MRSA in comparison with HA-MRSA and MSSA and (ii) to evaluate whether altering the dose of rifampin changed the in vitro results of the combination of vancomycin and rifampin.

Unique patient isolates of S. aureus were selected to obtain 25 CA-MRSA, 10 HA-MRSA, and 11 MSSA. Designation of isolates as CA versus HA was made in accordance with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines (14). MICs were determined by disk diffusion methods and by broth macrodilution technique. Time-kill studies were done following the methods of Eliopoulos and Mollering (11), with a starting inoculum of 5 × 106 CFU/ml. Vancomycin was studied at 10 μg/ml, gentamicin at 1 μg/ml, and rifampin at 0.5 μg/ml; selected strains were also studied at rifampin concentrations of 0.016 and 3 μg/ml. For the purposes of this study, synergy was said to be present if, after a 24-h incubation, the number of CFU was ≥2 log10 lower in the presence of the combination than with the single, more active, agent. Antagonism was said to be present if CFU were ≥2 log10 higher after incubation with the combination than with the single, more active, agent.

All strains of S. aureus used in this study were susceptible to vancomycin, with no differences among CA-MRSA, HA-MRSA,or MSSA. CA-MRSA were more likely to be susceptible to gentamicin (90%) than were HA-MRSA (50%) (P = 0.016). The MIC of rifampin ranged from ≤0.016 to 0.25 μg/ml, with a minimum 50% inhibitory concentration of 0.31 μg/ml with no differences among the three groups of organisms.

The mean rate of killing for vancomycin alone was similar among HA-MRSA, CA-MRSA, and MSSA (at 24 h, P = 0.877; Table 1). In the presence of 1 μg of gentamicin/ml alone, CFU for all isolates declined by a mean of 0.79 log10 at 24 h. When the two drugs were added together, killing was nearly 100-fold greater or more at each time point than it had been for vancomycin alone (Table 1, Fig. 1a). Synergy was observed for 23 out of 25 (92%) CA-MRSA, 5 out of 10 (50%) HA-MRSA, and 8 out of 11 (73%) MSSA (synergy was more frequent for CA-MRSA and MSSA than for HA-MRSA [P = 0.022]; CA-MRSA were not different from MSSA [P = 0.123]). At 24 h, the mean decrease with the combination of vancomycin and gentamicin compared to that with vancomycin alone was 2.78 log10 for CA-MRSA, 2.84 log10 for MSSA, and 1.49 log10 for HA-MRSA (P = 0.025 for CA-MRSA and P = 0.023 for MSSA, having greater decreases versus HA-MRSA; Fig. 1b). Synergy was noted for 41% of gentamicin-resistant isolates and 91% of susceptible isolates (P < 0.001).

In contrast, the addition of rifampin at 0.5 μg/ml to vancomycin resulted in decreased bactericidal activity at 4, 8, and 24 h compared to the activity of vancomycin alone (Table 1, Fig. 1a), an effect that was similar among the three groups of isolates (P = 0.734). No evidence of synergistic effect was noted for any of the isolates, whereas the presence of rifampin was antagonistic in nine strains (four CA-MRSA strains, three HA-MRSA strains, and two MSSA strains). Similar results were obtained when rifampin was studied at either low dose (0.16 μg/ml) or high dose (3.0 μg/ml) (data not shown).

One of the characteristics of CA-MRSA are their propensity to carry the basis for methicillin resistance, the mec gene, in a novel type of staphylococcal chromosomal cassette (SCC) known as type IV SCCmec (9, 17). The SCCmec type of each MRSA isolates was determined by PCR using the method of Okuma et al. (26). Positive controls NCTC 10492, (SCCmec type I), N315 (SCCmec type II), 85/2082 (SCCmec type III), and CA 05 (SCCmec type IVa) were kindly provided by Keiichi Hiramatsu and Teruyo Ito, Department of Bacteriology, Juntendo University, Tokyo, Japan. All of the isolates studied here that were classified as CA by epidemiologic guidelines published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention carried type IVa SCCmec. Five of the HA-MRSA had type II SCCmec while the other five contained type IVa. No strains carried type I or type III SCCmec. The CA-MRSA were more likely to carry type IV SCCmec than were hospital isolates (P = 0.001). The MRSA isolates containing type IVa SCCmec were more likely to be synergistically affected by the combination of vancomycin and gentamicin than were those having type II SCCmec (P = 0.044).

Treatment of serious MRSA infections with vancomycin is associated with persistent bacteremia and a substantial rate of complication and relapse (7, 19). Until recently, MRSA infections were nearly always HA, and the known tendency of these organisms to exhibit aminoglycoside resistance reduced interest in adding gentamicin to vancomycin (3). The finding that nearly all CA-MRSA studied here were sensitive to gentamicin is in accord with previously published reports (1, 10). An unexpected finding, however, was that 5 of 10 HA-MRSA strains also were sensitive to gentamicin. Aminoglycoside testing of MRSA in the past has suggested much higher rates of resistance (3). The results of this study suggest that aminoglycoside resistance among MRSA at our center is decreasing in a manner similar to that recently reported in France and in Minnesota (18, 23).

The decreased killing activity of S. aureus when rifampin was added to vancomycin is in accordance with previous reports that employed time-kill methods (16, 31, 32). The significance of in vitro studies with this combination has been questioned by some authors, who have noted indifference or antagonism when test tube methods were used but appear to have shown synergy in animal models (4, 25, 27). The clinical evidence for the use of this combination is equally discordant, with one trial and a few case reports reporting efficacy in treating MRSA infections while in a randomized trial the addition of rifampin to vancomycin for MRSA bacteremia had no effect (12, 19, 20, 30). However, previous in vitro data has suggested that the addition of rifampin to cell wall-active agents may facilitate bactericidal activity, particularly against organisms sequestered within foci that are not readily accessible to antibiotics or immune mechanisms (8). Another previous study noted that rifampin was synergistic with ciprofloxacin at sub-MIC doses but was antagonistic at higher doses (31). When varying the concentration of rifampin between 0.0156 μg/ml (sub-MIC) up to 3.0 μg/ml, we found no difference in the killing effects of the combination of vancomycin and rifampin. Thus, the antagonistic interaction noted in vitro between vancomycin and rifampin is not concentration dependent.

The slow response of some MRSA infections to vancomycin is likely to prompt clinicians to continue to employ additional agents in combination with vancomycin in an attempt to improve the response to therapy. There appears to be changing resistance patterns to aminoglycosides among MRSA isolates that might be expected to make these organisms more responsive to combination therapy. At the present time, the high rates of gentamicin susceptibility among CA-MRSA suggest that combination therapy may be particularly effective for patients with infections due to these isolates. Clinical studies evaluating this regimen are needed more than ever given the rising rates of methicillin resistance among community S. aureus isolates.

FIG. 1.
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG. 1.

(a) Time-kill curves for all isolates of S. aureus. Antibiotic concentrations: vancomycin, 10 μg/ml; gentamicin, 1 μg/ml; rifampin, 0.625 μg/ml. Errors bars indicate ±1 standard deviation. (b) Time-kill curves for isolates of MRSA. Error bars indicate ±1 standard deviation.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 1.

Time-kill responses for S. aureus

FOOTNOTES

    • Received 13 February 2004.
    • Returned for modification 24 May 2004.
    • Accepted 30 June 2004.
  • Copyright © 2004 American Society for Microbiology

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    Almer, L. S., V. D. Shortridge, A. M. Nilius, J. M. Beyer, N. B. Soni, M. H. Bui, G. G. Stone, and R. K. Flamm. 2002. Antimicrobial susceptibility and molecular characterization of community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis.43:225-232.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  2. 2.↵
    Anonymous. 1999. Four pediatric deaths from community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: Minnesota and North Dakota, 1997-1999. Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep.48:707-710.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    Ayliffe, G. A. 1997. The progressive intercontinental spread of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.Clin. Infect. Dis.24(Suppl. 1):S74-S79.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    Bayer, A. S., and K. Lam. 1985. Efficacy of vancomycin plus rifampin in experimental aortic-valve endocarditis due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: in vitro-in vivo correlations. J. Infect. Dis.151:157-165.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  5. 5.↵
    Chambers, H. F. 1988. Methicillin-resistant staphylococci. Clin. Microbiol. Rev.1:173-186.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    Chang, F. Y., B. B. MacDonald, J. E. Peacock, Jr., D. M. Musher, P. Triplett, J. M. Mylotte, A. O'Donnell, M. M. Wagener, and V. L. Yu. 2003. A prospective multicenter study of Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: incidence of endocarditis, risk factors for mortality, and clinical impact of methicillin resistance. Medicine (Baltimore)82:322-332.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  7. 7.↵
    Chang, F. Y., J. E. Peacock, Jr., D. M. Musher, P. Triplett, B. B. MacDonald, J. M. Mylotte, A. O'Donnell, M. M. Wagener, and V. L. Yu. 2003. Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: recurrence and the impact of antibiotic treatment in a prospective multicenter study. Medicine (Baltimore)82:333-339.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  8. 8.↵
    Darouiche, R. O., and R. J. Hamill. 1994. Antibiotic penetration of and bactericidal activity within endothelial cells. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.38:1059-1064.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    Daum, R. S., T. Ito, K. Hiramatsu, F. Hussain, K. Mongkolrattanothai, M. Jamklang, and S. Boyle-Vavra. 2002. A novel methicillin-resistance cassette in community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolates of diverse genetic backgrounds. J. Infect. Dis.186:1344-1347.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  10. 10.↵
    Eady, E. A., and J. H. Cove. 2003. Staphylococcal resistance revisited: community-acquired methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus—an emerging problem for the management of skin and soft tissue infections. Curr. Opin. Infect. Dis.16:103-124.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  11. 11.↵
    Eliopoulous, G., and R. J. Mollering. 1996. Antimicrobial combinations, p. 330-396. In V. Lorian (ed.), Antibiotics in laboratory medicine, 4th ed. The Williams and Wilkins Co., Baltimore, Md.
  12. 12.↵
    Faville, R. J., Jr., D. E. Zaske, E. L. Kaplan, K. Crossley, L. D. Sabath, and P. G. Quie. 1978. Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis. Combined therapy with vancomycin and rifampin. JAMA240:1963-1965.
    OpenUrl
  13. 13.↵
    Fortun, J., E. Navas, J. Martinez-Beltran, J. Perez-Molina, P. Martin-Davila, A. Guerrero, and S. Moreno. 2001. Short-course therapy for right-side endocarditis due to Staphylococcus aureus in drug abusers: cloxacillin versus glycopeptides in combination with gentamicin. Clin. Infect. Dis.33:120-125.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  14. 14.↵
    Garner, J. S., W. R. Jarvis, T. G. Emori, T. C. Horan, and J. M. Hughes. 1988. CDC definitions for nosocomial infections, 1988. Am. J. Infect. Control16:128-140.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  15. 15.↵
    Hackbarth, C. J., and H. F. Chambers. 1989. Methicillin-resistant staphylococci: detection methods and treatment of infections. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.33:995-999.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  16. 16.↵
    Hackbarth, C. J., H. F. Chambers, and M. A. Sande. 1986. Serum bactericidal activity of rifampin in combination with other antimicrobial agents against Staphylococcus aureus.Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.29:611-613.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. 17.↵
    Katayama, Y., T. Ito, and K. Hiramatsu. 2000. A new class of genetic element, staphylococcus cassette chromosome mec, encodes methicillin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus.Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.44:1549-1555.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. 18.↵
    Laurent, F., H. Lelievre, M. Cornu, F. Vandenesch, G. Carret, J. Etienne, and J. P. Flandrois. 2001. Fitness and competitive growth advantage of new gentamicin-susceptible MRSA clones spreading in French hospitals. J. Antimicrob. Chemother.47:277-283.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  19. 19.↵
    Levine, D. P., B. S. Fromm, and B. R. Reddy. 1991. Slow response to vancomycin or vancomycin plus rifampin in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis. Ann. Intern. Med.115:674-680.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  20. 20.↵
    Massanari, R. M., and S. T. Donta. 1978. The efficacy of rifampin as adjunctive therapy in selected cases of staphylococcal endocarditis. Chest73:371-375.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  21. 21.↵
    Mulazimoglu, L., S. D. Drenning, and R. R. Muder. 1996. Vancomycin-gentamicin synergism revisited: effect of gentamicin susceptibility of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.40:1534-1535.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. 22.↵
    Mulligan, M. E., K. A. Murray-Leisure, B. S. Ribner, H. C. Standiford, J. F. John, J. A. Korvick, C. A. Kauffman, and V. L. Yu. 1993. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: a consensus review of the microbiology, pathogenesis, and epidemiology with implications for prevention and management. Am. J. Med.94:313-328.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  23. 23.↵
    Naimi, T. S., K. H. LeDell, D. J. Boxrud, A. V. Groom, C. D. Steward, S. K. Johnson, J. M. Besser, C. O'Boyle, R. N. Danila, J. E. Cheek, M. T. Osterholm, K. A. Moore, and K. E. Smith. 2001. Epidemiology and clonality of community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Minnesota, 1996-1998. Clin. Infect. Dis.33:990-996.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  24. 24.↵
    Naimi, T. S., K. H. LeDell, K. Como-Sabetti, S. M. Borchardt, D. J. Boxrud, J. Etienne, S. K. Johnson, F. Vandenesch, S. Fridkin, C. O'Boyle, R. N. Danila, and R. Lynfield. 2003. Comparison of community- and health care-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection. JAMA290:2976-2984.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  25. 25.↵
    Norden, C. W., and M. Shaffer. 1983. Treatment of experimental chronic osteomyelitis due to Staphylococcus aureus with vancomycin and rifampin. J. Infect. Dis.147:352-357.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  26. 26.↵
    Okuma, K., K. Iwakawa, J. D. Turnidge, W. B. Grubb, J. M. Bell, F. G. O'Brien, G. W. Coombs, J. W. Pearman, F. C. Tenover, M. Kapi, C. Tiensasitorn, T. Ito, and K. Hiramatsu. 2002. Dissemination of new methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus clones in the community. J. Clin. Microbiol.40:4289-4294.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. 27.↵
    Palmer, S. M., and M. J. Rybak. 1996. Pharmacodynamics of once- or twice-daily levofloxacin versus vancomycin, with or without rifampin, against Staphylococcus aureus in an in vitro model with infected platelet-fibrin clots. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.40:701-705.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. 28.↵
    Small, P. M., and H. F. Chambers. 1990. Vancomycin for Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis in intravenous drug users. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.34:1227-1231.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. 29.↵
    Vandenesch, F., T. Naimi, M. C. Enright, G. Lina, G. R. Nimmo, H. Heffernan, N. Liassine, M. Bes, T. Greenland, M. E. Reverdy, and J. Etienne. 2003. Community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus carrying Panton-Valentine leukocidin genes: worldwide emergence. Emerg. Infect. Dis.9:978-984.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  30. 30.↵
    Van der Auwera, P., F. Meunier-Carpentier, and J. Klastersky. 1983. Clinical study of combination therapy with oxacillin and rifampin for staphylococcal infections. Rev. Infect. Dis.5(Suppl. 3):S515-S522.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  31. 31.↵
    Van der Auwera, P., and P. Joly. 1987. Comparative in-vitro activities of teicoplanin, vancomycin, coumermycin and ciprofloxacin, alone and in combination with rifampicin or LM 427, against Staphylococcus aureus.J. Antimicrob. Chemother.19:313-320.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  32. 32.↵
    Watanakunakorn, C., and J. C. Guerriero. 1981. Interaction between vancomycin and rifampin against Staphylococcus aureus.Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.19:1089-1091.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
In Vitro Killing of Community-Associated Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus with Drug Combinations
Samuel A. Shelburne, Daniel M. Musher, Kristina Hulten, Heather Ceasar, Michael Y. Lu, Imran Bhaila, Richard J. Hamill
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Sep 2004, 48 (10) 4016-4019; DOI: 10.1128/AAC.48.10.4016-4019.2004

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Print

Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email

Thank you for sharing this Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
In Vitro Killing of Community-Associated Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus with Drug Combinations
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
In Vitro Killing of Community-Associated Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus with Drug Combinations
Samuel A. Shelburne, Daniel M. Musher, Kristina Hulten, Heather Ceasar, Michael Y. Lu, Imran Bhaila, Richard J. Hamill
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Sep 2004, 48 (10) 4016-4019; DOI: 10.1128/AAC.48.10.4016-4019.2004
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

KEYWORDS

community-acquired infections
Drug Therapy, Combination
methicillin resistance
staphylococcal infections
Staphylococcus aureus

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

  • About AAC
  • Editor in Chief
  • Editorial Board
  • Policies
  • For Reviewers
  • For the Media
  • For Librarians
  • For Advertisers
  • Alerts
  • AAC Podcast
  • RSS
  • FAQ
  • Permissions
  • Journal Announcements

Authors

  • ASM Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Article Types
  • Ethics
  • Contact Us

Follow #AACJournal

@ASMicrobiology

       

ASM Journals

ASM journals are the most prominent publications in the field, delivering up-to-date and authoritative coverage of both basic and clinical microbiology.

About ASM | Contact Us | Press Room

 

ASM is a member of

Scientific Society Publisher Alliance

 

American Society for Microbiology
1752 N St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 737-3600

Copyright © 2021 American Society for Microbiology | Privacy Policy | Website feedback

Print ISSN: 0066-4804; Online ISSN: 1098-6596