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
Susceptibility

In Vitro Synergy between Clofazimine and Amikacin in Treatment of Nontuberculous Mycobacterial Disease

Jakko van Ingen, Sarah E. Totten, Niels K. Helstrom, Leonid B. Heifets, Martin J. Boeree, Charles L. Daley
Jakko van Ingen
aDivision of Mycobacterial and Respiratory Infections, National Jewish Health, Denver, Colorado, USA
bDepartment of Medical Microbiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sarah E. Totten
cDepartment of Mycobacteriology, Advanced Diagnostics Laboratories (ADx), National Jewish Health, Denver, Colorado, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Niels K. Helstrom
cDepartment of Mycobacteriology, Advanced Diagnostics Laboratories (ADx), National Jewish Health, Denver, Colorado, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Leonid B. Heifets
cDepartment of Mycobacteriology, Advanced Diagnostics Laboratories (ADx), National Jewish Health, Denver, Colorado, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Martin J. Boeree
dDepartment of Pulmonary Diseases, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Charles L. Daley
aDivision of Mycobacterial and Respiratory Infections, National Jewish Health, Denver, Colorado, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.01505-12
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

Disease caused by nontuberculous mycobacteria (NTM) is increasing in frequency. The outcome of treatment for NTM lung disease is poor, particularly lung disease caused by Mycobacterium simiae and M. abscessus. Exploring synergy between active available drugs is a sensible way forward given the lack of new active drugs. We tested for synergy between amikacin and clofazimine, using standardized methods, in 564 consecutive clinical isolates identified as 21 species of rapidly growing mycobacteria, 16 clinical M. avium complex isolates, and 10 M. simiae isolates. Clofazimine and amikacin are each active in vitro against NTM; 97% (n = 548) of the rapid growers revealed MICs of clofazimine of ≤1 μg/ml, and 93% (n = 524) proved susceptible to amikacin. The combination showed significant synergistic activity in 56 of 68 (82%) eligible M. abscessus isolates, 4 of 5 M. chelonae isolates, and 1 M. fortuitum and 1 M. cosmeticum isolate, with 4- to 8-fold decreases in MICs to both drugs. Significant synergy could also be demonstrated against all M. avium complex and M. simiae isolates, with fractional inhibitory concentrations of <0.5. Clofazimine and amikacin show significant synergistic activity against both rapidly and slowly growing nontuberculous mycobacteria. The safety and tolerability of adding clofazimine to amikacin-containing regimens should be tested in clinical trials, and the results of susceptibility tests for these two compounds and their combination merit clinical validation. Synergy between clofazimine and other antibiotics with intracellular targets should be explored.

INTRODUCTION

Disease caused by nontuberculous mycobacteria (NTM) is increasing in frequency in many parts of the world, especially those where the incidence of tuberculosis is in decline (23). NTM are divided into slow growers (e.g., Mycobacterium avium complex, M. kansasii, and M. simiae) and rapid growers (e.g., M. abscessus, M. chelonae, and M. fortuitum). Within these groups, treatment regimens and treatment outcomes differ by species (8). In general, treatment outcomes are poor, but they are particularly so in lung disease caused by M. simiae and M. abscessus (8, 9, 10, 19). Unfortunately, there are few new active drugs available, so exploration of synergistic activity may provide means to develop better treatment regimens utilizing the most active combinations of existing drugs.

Clofazimine, a drug designed for tuberculosis treatment though mainly used in the treatment of leprosy (14), is among the active existing drugs that could be of use in itself and as an adjunctive drug. Clofazimine has been used as a replacement for rifampin, with similar outcomes, in lung disease caused by M. avium complex (MAC) (6). Recently, in vitro evidence for synergy between clofazimine and amikacin was recorded in rapidly growing NTM species, including M. abscessus, M. chelonae, and M. fortuitum (17). The potential of clofazimine combined with amikacin warrants investigation in both slow and rapid growers, as amikacin is an important cornerstone of therapy for disease caused by both groups of NTM (8). To further explore clofazimine-amikacin synergy, we tested a large series of NTM, both slow and rapid growers, using validated methods.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We tested for synergy between amikacin and clofazimine in 564 consecutive clinical isolates identified as rapidly growing mycobacteria (342 M. abscessus subsp. abscessus, 48 M. abscessus subsp. bolletii, 57 M. chelonae, 44 M. fortuitum, 14 M. immunogenum, 14 M. mucogenicum, 9 M. porcinum, 8 M. peregrinum, 5 M. mageritense, 4 M. smegmatis, 4 M. conceptionense, 3 M. goodii, 3 M. senegalense, 2 M. septicum, 2 M. wolinskyi, and 1 each of M. cosmeticum, M. duvalii, M. phocaicum, M. neoaurum, and M. llatzerense). This synergy was also assessed in 26 slowly growing NTM (16 clinical M. avium complex and 10 M. simiae). One strain per species per patient was eligible for analysis.

All NTM were identified by sequencing of the partial 16S rRNA and rpoB genes (1, 2). We applied the updated taxonomy of M. abscessus published by Leao and colleagues (12).

We performed drug susceptibility testing (DST) as advised by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) (5), i.e., by broth microdilution in cation-adjusted Mueller-Hinton broth for the rapid growers (5) and by the broth macrodilution method, using the BacTec460 platform (5, 18), for the slow growers. For the rapid growers, synergy was determined by testing susceptibility to amikacin concentrations of 2, 8, 16, 32, and 64 μg/ml, clofazimine concentration of 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 μg/ml, and clofazimine concentrations of 2, 1, and 0.5 μg/ml combined with 2 μg/ml of amikacin. For amikacin, MICs of ≤16 were interpreted as susceptible, 32 μg/ml as intermediate, and ≥64 μg/ml as resistant (5). For clofazimine, no interpretative criteria exist. Synergy was defined as susceptibility to the combination of clofazimine and amikacin at less than half of the MICs to the individual compounds.

For the slow growers, MICs to the individual drugs were determined first. For clofazimine, concentrations of 0.06, 0.12, and 0.25 μg/ml were tested. For amikacin, concentrations of 2, 4, 8, and 16 μg/ml were tested. Subsequently, 2-, 4-, 8-, and 16-fold dilutions of the MICs were prepared and tested in combination. To assess synergy, we calculated fractional inhibitory concentrations (FICs) using the formula FIC = (MICa combination/MICa alone) + (MICb combination/MICb alone), with clofazimine as drug a and amikacin as drug b. Synergy was defined as an FIC of ≤0.5 (13).

RESULTS

Rapid growers.For the three major species M. abscessus, M. chelonae, and M. fortuitum, the MIC50 and MIC90 of clofazimine are given in Table 1. The single M. cosmeticum isolate had a MIC of clofazimine of 1 μg/ml. All isolates of the other species had MICs of ≤0.5 μg/ml; as a result, clofazimine-amikacin synergy could not be assessed for these species.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1

Clofazimine and amikacin susceptibility in rapidly growing mycobacteria

Amikacin susceptibility (MIC of ≤16 μg/ml) was measured in 93% (524/564) of the isolates tested (92% [314/342] for M. abscessus subsp. abscessus, 90% [43/48] for M. abscessus subsp. bolletii, 98% [56/57] for M. chelonae, 98% [43/44] for M. fortuitum, and 93% [68/73] for isolates of remaining species). There was no concordance between amikacin and clofazimine susceptibility results. The MIC50s and MIC90s for amikacin of M. abscessus, M. chelonae, and M. fortuitum are recorded in Table 1.

Eighty-four isolates (68 M. abscessus subsp. abscessus, 9 M. abscessus subsp. bolletii, 5 M. chelonae, 1 M. fortuitum, and 1 M. cosmeticum) demonstrated baseline clofazimine MICs of >0.5 μg/ml and amikacin MICs of >2 μg/ml and were eligible to assess clofazimine-amikacin synergy. Of these 84, 68 (81%) showed synergy. Synergy was noted for 56 of 68 M. abscessus subsp. abscessus isolates (85%), 6 of 9 M. abscessus subsp. bolletii isolates (67%) (all belonged to the former “M. massiliense”), 4 of 5 M. chelonae isolates, and the single M. fortuitum and M. cosmeticum isolates, with 4- to 8-fold decreases in MICs (see Table 1).

A total of 14 (10 M. abscessus subsp. abscessus, 2 M. abscessus subsp. bolletii, 1 M. chelonae, and 1 M. fortuitum) isolates that tested intermediate or resistant to amikacin alone (MIC of >16 mg/liter) proved susceptible (MIC of <16 mg/liter) after the addition of clofazimine.

Slow growers.The results for susceptibility to clofazimine, amikacin, and the clofazimine-amikacin combination in the 16 selected M. avium complex strains (6 M. avium, 7 M. intracellulare, and 3 M. chimaera) and 10 M. simiae strains are recorded in Table 2. The MICs did not differ between M. avium, M. intracellulare, and M. chimaera strains. Clofazimine and amikacin showed synergistic activity against all isolates, with 4- to 16-fold decreases in MICs to both drugs for individual isolates; we measured FICs of ≤0.5 for all isolates, with mean FICs of 0.22 for the M. simiae and 0.38 for the MAC isolates.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2

Clofazimine and amikacin susceptibilities in M. avium complex and M. simiae isolates

DISCUSSION

Significant synergy between clofazimine and amikacin is observed across a range of nontuberculous Mycobacterium species, including both slow and rapid growers. This in vitro observation is most prominent for M. abscessus, MAC, and M. simiae, which are well-known causative agents of human disease. Disease caused by M. abscessus and M. simiae is notorious for the poor outcomes of drug treatment (8, 9, 10, 19). Amikacin plays a central role in the treatment of M. abscessus disease (8), and the combination with clofazimine may improve its efficacy. In contrast to a previous study in Taiwan (17), which applied similar methods to a smaller number of isolates, we did encounter M. abscessus isolates with MICs of ≥1 μg/ml to clofazimine and intermediate susceptibility or resistance to amikacin in which no synergy could be demonstrated. Hence, synergy should be tested, rather than assumed, prior to treatment.

In MAC disease, amikacin is mainly used in the first 2 to 3 months of treatment for moderate or severe disease (8); here, too, a combination with clofazimine may increase the antimycobacterial activity of the intensive phase of treatment. In M. simiae disease, the role of amikacin used to be limited, due to its limited in vitro activity (20). However, if that activity can be as enhanced by clofazimine, as our in vitro evidence suggests, there may be a future role for the amikacin-clofazimine combination in M. simiae disease. The outcome of treatment in M. simiae has been very poor, especially with the rifampin-ethambutol-macrolide regimen (8, 19). This has, in part, been related to the lack of synergistic activity between rifampin and ethambutol against M. simiae (20). Amikacin-clofazimine-based regimens may provide interesting new leads and should be tested in clinical trials. However, the MICs and their interpretation for amikacin and, particularly, clofazimine still await clinical validation (21), and the relationship of MICs to achievable drug serum concentrations in patients and outcome of treatment remains to be established (22); this, too, could be part of the trial design. Despite the use of the synergistic combination of rifampin and ethambutol in MAC lung disease, the treatment outcome of current regimens is suboptimal (8, 22), and the in vitro synergy between clofazimine and amikacin is thus no guarantee for synergy and good outcome of treatment in vivo. It is also important to realize that in one trial of HIV-related disseminated M. avium disease, the use of clofazimine was associated with excess mortality (16). Hence, any new trial of clofazimine therapy should proceed with caution.

Clofazimine is currently registered for use in leprosy only, although it is also used to treat multidrug-resistant tuberculosis and, in some cases, NTM. The drug is not registered for NTM disease, and the production and dissemination of clofazimine are limited. In many settings, specific approval to acquire clofazimine for an individual patient has to be sought. Previously, more active analogs of clofazimine have been produced (14), and the synthesis of novel compounds in this class may help circumvent the limited availability of clofazimine and offer more-active alternatives in the long term.

A biological explanation for this synergistic activity is lacking. Clofazimine is thought to have cell wall-destabilizing properties (3, 4). This may allow increased influx of amikacin, possibly by attaching to clofazimine and using it as a “Trojan horse” (14). The synergistic activity of clofazimine may extend to other drugs with intracellular targets, including macrolides, fluoroquinolones, and rifamycins.

The synergistic activity of clofazimine and amikacin, as well as kanamycin, has been previously noted in mouse models of MAC disease (7, 15). Subsequent researchers suggested that the synergy in vivo may be overestimated and result partly from carryover of clofazimine from tissue samples to culture media, thereby inhibiting growth and, thus, bacterial load assessments (11). The carryover hypothesis was later refuted (14).

This study has three important limitations. The first is that interpretation of clofazimine MICs as susceptible or resistant has not been clinically validated (21). In fact, the clinical efficacy of clofazimine against rapid growers has never been evaluated and its efficacy against MAC has only been demonstrated in an uncontrolled trial (6). The second is the low number of M. abscessus subsp. bolletii isolates. As we were able to demonstrate clofazimine-amikacin synergy in a range of rapidly growing mycobacteria, as well as slowly growing mycobacteria, it is likely that this synergy is relevant to all M. abscessus subspecies and all MAC members. For the rapid growers, the test method probably resulted in an underestimation of the synergistic activity. As most isolates were already susceptible to either 0.5 μg/ml of clofazimine or 2 μg/ml of amikacin, synergy could not be detected; the combination of 0.5 μg/ml of clofazimine and 2 μg/ml of amikacin was the lowest concentration tested. And yet, it is likely that synergy is present at equal levels in those isolates; this, as well as its potential clinical relevance, warrants separate study.

In summary, clofazimine and amikacin show significant synergistic activity against a variety of NTM, including rapid and slow growers; it could be observed in all MAC, M. simiae, and M. chelonae isolates, 84% of M. abscessus isolates, and 1 of 2 M. fortuitum isolates. Therefore, the addition of clofazimine to amikacin-containing regimens should be tested in clinical trials. The activity of clofazimine, in itself, against NTM and the synergy with amikacin may warrant a “renaissance” of clofazimine, or of riminophenazines in the broader sense.

FOOTNOTES

    • Received 23 July 2012.
    • Returned for modification 24 August 2012.
    • Accepted 24 September 2012.
    • Accepted manuscript posted online 1 October 2012.
  • Copyright © 2012, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Adékambi T,
    2. Berger P,
    3. Raoult D,
    4. Drancourt M
    . 2006. rpoB gene sequence-based characterization of emerging non-tuberculous mycobacteria with descriptions of Mycobacterium bolletii sp. nov., Mycobacterium phocaicum sp. nov. and Mycobacterium aubagnense sp. nov. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 56:133–143.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  2. 2.↵
    1. Ben Salah I,
    2. Adékambi T,
    3. Raoult D,
    4. Drancourt M
    . 2008. rpoB sequence-based identification of Mycobacterium avium complex species. Microbiology 154:3715–3723.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Bopape MC,
    2. et al
    . 2004. Antimicrobial activity of clofazimine is not dependent on mycobacterial C-type phospholipases. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 53:971–974.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  4. 4.↵
    1. Cholo MC,
    2. et al
    . 2006. Effects of clofazimine on potassium uptake by a Trk-deletion mutant of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 57:79–84.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  5. 5.↵
    Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. 2011. Susceptibility testing of mycobacteria, nocardiae and other aerobic actinomycetes. Approved standard. CLSI document M24-A2. CLSI, Wayne, PA.
  6. 6.↵
    1. Field SK,
    2. Cowie RL
    . 2003. Treatment of Mycobacterium avium-intracellulare complex lung disease with a macrolide, ethambutol, and clofazimine. Chest 124:1482–1486.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  7. 7.↵
    1. Gangadharam PR,
    2. Perumal VK,
    3. Podapati NR,
    4. Kesavalu L,
    5. Iseman MD
    . 1988. In vivo activity of amikacin alone or in combination with clofazimine or rifabutin or both against acute experimental Mycobacterium avium complex infections in beige mice. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 32:1400–1403.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Griffith DE,
    2. et al
    . 2007. An official ATS/IDSA statement: diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of nontuberculous mycobacterial diseases. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 175:367–416.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  9. 9.↵
    1. Jarand J,
    2. et al
    . 2011. Clinical and microbiological outcomes in patients receiving treatment for Mycobacterium abscessus pulmonary disease. Clin. Infect. Dis. 52:565–571.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Jeon K,
    2. et al
    . 2009. Antibiotic treatment of Mycobacterium abscessus lung disease: a retrospective analysis of 65 patients. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 180:896–902.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  11. 11.↵
    1. Ji B,
    2. Lounis N,
    3. Truffot-Pernot C,
    4. Grosset J
    . 1994. Effectiveness of various antimicrobial agents against Mycobacterium avium complex in the beige mouse model. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 38:2521–2529.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. Leao SC,
    2. Tortoli E,
    3. Euzéby JP,
    4. Garcia MJ
    . 2011. Proposal that Mycobacterium massiliense and Mycobacterium bolletii be united and reclassified as Mycobacterium abscessus subsp. bolletii comb. nov., designation of Mycobacterium abscessus subsp. abscessus subsp. nov. and emended description of Mycobacterium abscessus. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 61:2311–2313.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  13. 13.↵
    1. Odds FC
    . 2003. Synergy, antagonism, and what the chequerboard puts between them. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 52:1.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  14. 14.↵
    1. Reddy VM,
    2. O'Sullivan JF,
    3. Gangadharam PR
    . 1999. Antimycobacterial activities of riminophenazines. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 43:615–623.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  15. 15.↵
    1. Saito H,
    2. Sato K
    . 1989. Activity of rifabutin alone and in combination with clofazimine, kanamycin and ethambutol against Mycobacterium intracellulare infections in mice. Tubercle 70:201–205.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Shafran SD,
    2. et al
    . 1996. A comparison of two regimens for the treatment of Mycobacterium avium complex bacteremia in AIDS: rifabutin, ethambutol, and clarithromycin versus rifampin, ethambutol, clofazimine, and ciprofloxacin. Canadian HIV Trials Network Protocol 010 Study Group. N. Engl. J. Med. 335:377–383.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  17. 17.↵
    1. Shen GH,
    2. et al
    . 2010. High efficacy of clofazimine and its synergistic effect with amikacin against rapidly growing mycobacteria. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 35:400–404.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  18. 18.↵
    1. Siddiqi SH,
    2. et al
    . 1993. Rapid broth macrodilution method for determination of MICs for Mycobacterium avium isolates. J. Clin. Microbiol. 31:2332–2338.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. 19.↵
    1. van Ingen J,
    2. Boeree MJ,
    3. Dekhuijzen PNR,
    4. van Soolingen D
    . 2008. Clinical relevance of Mycobacterium simiae in pulmonary samples. Eur. Respir. J. 31:106–109.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. 20.↵
    1. van Ingen J,
    2. Totten SE,
    3. Heifets LB,
    4. Boeree MJ,
    5. Daley CL
    . 2012. Drug susceptibility testing and pharmacokinetics question current treatment regimens in Mycobacterium simiae complex disease. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents. 39:173–176.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. van Ingen J,
    2. Boeree MJ,
    3. van Soolingen D,
    4. Mouton JW
    . 2012. Mechanisms of drug resistance and drug susceptibility testing of nontuberculous mycobacteria. Drug Resist. Updat. 15:149–161.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    1. van Ingen J,
    2. et al
    . 2012. The pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of Mycobacterium avium complex disease treatment. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 186:559–565.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  23. 23.↵
    1. Winthrop KL,
    2. et al
    . 2010. Pulmonary nontuberculous mycobacterial disease prevalence and clinical features: an emerging public health disease. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 182:977–982.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
In Vitro Synergy between Clofazimine and Amikacin in Treatment of Nontuberculous Mycobacterial Disease
Jakko van Ingen, Sarah E. Totten, Niels K. Helstrom, Leonid B. Heifets, Martin J. Boeree, Charles L. Daley
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Nov 2012, 56 (12) 6324-6327; DOI: 10.1128/AAC.01505-12

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 Synergy between Clofazimine and Amikacin in Treatment of Nontuberculous Mycobacterial Disease
(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 Synergy between Clofazimine and Amikacin in Treatment of Nontuberculous Mycobacterial Disease
Jakko van Ingen, Sarah E. Totten, Niels K. Helstrom, Leonid B. Heifets, Martin J. Boeree, Charles L. Daley
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Nov 2012, 56 (12) 6324-6327; DOI: 10.1128/AAC.01505-12
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • INTRODUCTION
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

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