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

Telavancin Is Active against Experimental Aortic Valve Endocarditis Caused by Daptomycin- and Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Strains

Wessam Abdelhady, Arnold S. Bayer, Rachelle Gonzales, Liang Li, Yan Q. Xiong
Wessam Abdelhady
aLos Angeles Biomedical Research Institute at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, California, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Arnold S. Bayer
aLos Angeles Biomedical Research Institute at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, California, USA
bDivision of Infectious Diseases, LAC Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, California, USA
cDavid Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rachelle Gonzales
aLos Angeles Biomedical Research Institute at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, California, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Liang Li
aLos Angeles Biomedical Research Institute at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, California, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Yan Q. Xiong
aLos Angeles Biomedical Research Institute at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, California, USA
bDivision of Infectious Diseases, LAC Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, California, USA
cDavid Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.01877-16
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

We compared the efficacy of telavancin (TLV) and daptomycin (DAP) in an experimental rabbit endocarditis model caused by two clinically derived daptomycin-resistant (DAPr) methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) strains. TLV treatment significantly reduced MRSA densities in all target tissues and increased the percentage of these organs rendered culture negative compared to those with the untreated control or DAP-treated animals. These results demonstrate that TLV has potent in vivo efficacy against DAPr MRSA isolates in this invasive endovascular infection model.

TEXT

Staphylococcus aureus is the most common cause of endovascular infections, including infective endocarditis (IE) (1). Despite the use of new antibiotics, such as daptomycin (DAP), the morbidity and mortality associated with S. aureus infections remain unacceptably high (2). DAP is a lipopeptide antibiotic with activity against a wide range of Gram-positive bacteria, including methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) (3). However, there have been increasing reports in which initially DAP-susceptible (DAPs) MRSA strains have developed DAP resistance (DAPr) both in vitro and in vivo as a result of exposure to DAP (4, 5).

Telavancin (TLV) is a lipoglycopeptide agent with a dual mechanism of action: cell wall synthesis inhibition and depolarization of the bacterial cell membrane (6). Recently, we studied five clinically derived DAPs/DAPr MRSA isogenic strain pairs isolated from patients who failed DAP therapy for TLV in vitro susceptibility (7). We found that all five MRSA strain sets were susceptible to TLV (MICs, ≤0.38 μg/ml), using the original MIC testing methods (8). Importantly, TLV therapy produced a significant MRSA density reduction in target tissues versus untreated or DAP-treated animals in experimental IE due to a single DAPr strain, REF2145 (7). These results demonstrated that TLV has potent bactericidal activity both in vitro and in vivo against DAPr MRSA strains (7). However, only one DAPr MRSA strain was tested in the IE model (7). In addition, the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute revised the antimicrobial susceptibility testing method for TLV in 2014 (9). The revised method provides more precise and reproducible TLV MICs and demonstrates that the previous technique underestimated the in vitro TLV potency (9, 10). Moreover, the revised CLSI methods decreased the TLV MIC interpretive breakpoint criterion for susceptibility for S. aureus from ≤1.0 μg/ml to ≤0.12 μg/ml (9). Therefore, in the current studies, we (i) retested the TLV MICs of the five clinically derived DAPs/DAPr MRSA strain pairs by using the revised CLSI method (10), (ii) performed in vitro time-kill assays based on the new TLV MICs, and (iii) investigated the therapeutic efficacy of TLV versus DAP in the IE model due to two additional clinically derived DAPr MRSA strains (B2.0 and SA684).

(This work was presented in part at the ASM Microbe, Boston, MA, 16 to 20 June 2016, abstract 4928 [11].)

Using the revised broth microdilution method, which includes dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) for panel production and polysorbate 80 (P-80), we found that TLV MICs were 3- to 6-fold lower than those in the previous results (Table 1) (7). These results were consistent with recent reports indicating that the previous method underestimated the in vitro TLV potency (10).

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

Susceptibilities of TLV and DAP on DAPs/DAPr MRSA strain pairs

The in vitro time-kill curves were performed based on the new TLV MICs observed in this study, with an initial inoculum of 105 or 107 CFU/ml of study strain (to encompass bacterial counts commonly achieved in target tissues of animals with experimental IE) (12–14). For these assays, we prioritized two DAPr MRSA strains (B2.0 and SA684), initially isolated from patients who experienced DAP therapy failure (15, 16). At 105 CFU/ml initial inoculum, TLV at 2 times the MIC and 5 times the MIC prevented regrowth of both DAPr MRSA strains (Fig. 1A and B), but DAP at only 5 times the MIC prevented regrowth of one DAPr MRSA strain (Fig. 1F). At 107 CFU/ml initial inoculum, only TLV at 5 times the MIC (Fig. 1C and D), but no DAP concentration (Fig. 1G and H), was effective at preventing the regrowth of both DAPr MRSA strains. These in vitro time-kill analyses revealed that TLV was more active than DAP against the two DAPr MRSA strains.

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

In vitro TLV and DAP time-kill curves against DAPr MRSA strains B2.0 (panels A and C for TLV, and panels E and G for DAP) and SA684 (panels B and D for TLV, and panels F and H for DAP) at initial inocula of 105 CFU/ml and 107 CFU/ml. Time-kill experiments were performed using Mueller-Hinton broth in the presence of 0 (●), 1× (■), 2× (▲), and 5× (◆) the MICs of TLV.

For the in vivo experiments, we demonstrated that the infective dose required to infect 95% of animals (ID95) of our two DAP MRSA strains in the IE model was 104 CFU/animal (data not shown). For the efficacy studies, animals were infected with this ID95 inoculum. At 24 h after infection, animals were randomly assigned to one of the four groups (10 animals/group): (i) untreated controls; (ii) TLV at 30 mg/kg of body weight, intravenously (i.v.), twice daily, which simulates the pharmacokinetic (PK) profile of the recommended human clinical dose (10 mg/kg, i.v. once daily) (7, 17, 18); (iii) DAP at 12 mg/kg, i.v. once daily, which mimics the human-like PK of the human standard dose (6 mg/kg, i.v., once daily) (15, 18); or (iv) DAP at 18 mg/kg, i.v. once daily, which mimics the human-like PK of high-dose DAP (10 mg/kg, i.v., once daily) (15). Treatment lasted for 3 days. At 24 h after the last therapeutic doses, antibiotic-treated animals were sacrificed. Control animals were euthanized at 24 h postinfection to determine the bacterial density in target tissue before antibiotic therapy. At sacrifice, the target tissues were removed and quantitatively cultured. Target tissue counts were expressed as mean log10 CFU/g of tissue ± standard deviation (SD). To compare tissue MRSA counts among the regimens, a nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis test was used. P values of <0.05 were considered statistically significant.

We observed that only TLV treatment significantly reduced MRSA densities in all three target tissues in the IE model due to two DAPr MRSA strains versus untreated controls and DAP-treated groups (Table 2). Importantly, TLV-treated rabbits had 71 to 100% culture-negative target tissues (71% and 100% in animals infected with the B2.0 and SA684 strains, respectively), while DAP therapy did not sterilize any tissue cultures (data not shown). In addition, 29% mortality was observed in the DAP 12 mg/kg treatment group and 0% mortality in the TLV treatment groups (data not shown).

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

MRSA density in target tissue in IE model caused by DAPr MRSA strain B2.0 or SA684

These results were consistent with our prior single-strain investigation of TLV's excellent activity in experimental IE due to DAPr MRSA strains (7). It may not be suitable to directly compare TLV versus DAP efficacy in the IE model due to DAPr MRSA strains because of their inherent reduced susceptibility to DAP. However, it is important in demonstrating that TLV does have great activity against infections caused by these strains, while the use of DAP would not be an appropriate option. In addition to DAPr MRSA strains, other studies also demonstrated that TLV had significantly better efficacy than with vancomycin and DAP in the IE models due to a broad range of MRSA strains, including vancomycin-intermediate S. aureus (VISA) and glycopeptide-intermediate S. aureus (GISA) (17–19). Taken together, these results suggest that TLV may be a viable alternative for the treatment of IE caused by MRSA strains resistant to other glycopeptide or lipopeptide antibiotics.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This work was supported by a research grant from Theravance Biopharma Antibiotics, Inc (to Y.Q.X.).

FOOTNOTES

    • Received 31 August 2016.
    • Returned for modification 23 October 2016.
    • Accepted 6 November 2016.
    • Accepted manuscript posted online 21 November 2016.
  • Copyright © 2017 American Society for Microbiology.

All Rights Reserved .

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Fowler VG Jr,
    2. Justice A,
    3. Moore C,
    4. Benjamin DK Jr,
    5. Woods CW,
    6. Campbell S,
    7. Reller LB,
    8. Corey GR,
    9. Day NP,
    10. Peacock SJ
    . 2005. Risk factors for hematogenous complications of intravascular catheter-associated Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. Clin Infect Dis40:695–703. doi:10.1086/427806.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  2. 2.↵
    1. Chambers HF,
    2. DeLeo FR
    . 2009. Waves of resistance: Staphylococcus aureus in the antibiotic era. Nat Rev Microbiol7:629–641. doi:10.1038/nrmicro2200.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  3. 3.↵
    1. Sakoulas G,
    2. Eliopoulos GM,
    3. Alder J,
    4. Eliopoulos CT
    . 2003. Efficacy of daptomycin in experimental endocarditis due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother47:1714–1718. doi:10.1128/AAC.47.5.1714-1718.2003.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. Boucher HW,
    2. Sakoulas G
    . 2007. Perspectives on daptomycin resistance, with emphasis on resistance in Staphylococcus aureus. Clin Infect Dis45:601–608. doi:10.1086/520655.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  5. 5.↵
    1. Jones T,
    2. Yeaman MR,
    3. Sakoulas G,
    4. Yang SJ,
    5. Proctor RA,
    6. Sahl HG,
    7. Schrenzel J,
    8. Xiong YQ,
    9. Bayer AS
    . 2008. Failures in clinical treatment of Staphylococcus aureus infection with daptomycin are associated with alterations in surface charge, membrane phospholipid asymmetry, and drug binding. Antimicrob Agents Chemother52:269–278. doi:10.1128/AAC.00719-07.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. Nannini EC,
    2. Stryjewski ME
    . 2008. A new lipoglycopeptide: telavancin. Expert Opin Pharmacother9:2197–2207. doi:10.1517/14656566.9.12.2197.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  7. 7.↵
    1. Xiong YQ,
    2. Hady WA,
    3. Bayer AS,
    4. Chen L,
    5. Kreiswirth BN,
    6. Yang SJ
    . 2012. Telavancin in therapy of experimental aortic valve endocarditis in rabbits due to daptomycin-nonsusceptible methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother56:5528–5533. doi:10.1128/AAC.00922-12.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    CLSI. 2014. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing; 24th informational supplement. M02-A11, M07-A9, and M11-A8.
  9. 9.↵
    1. Karlowsky JA,
    2. Nichol K,
    3. Zhanel GG
    . 2015. Telavancin: mechanisms of action, in vitro activity, and mechanisms of resistanceClin Infect Dis61(Suppl 2):S58–S68.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Farrell DJ,
    2. Mendes RE,
    3. Rhomberg PR,
    4. Jones RN
    . 2014. Revised reference broth microdilution method for testing telavancin: effect on MIC results and correlation with other testing methodologies. Antimicrob Agents Chemother58:5547–5551. doi:10.1128/AAC.03172-14.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    1. Abdelhady W,
    2. Bayer AS,
    3. Gonzales R,
    4. Li L,
    5. Xiong YQ
    . 2016. Efficacy of telavancin (TLV) and daptomycin (DAP) in an experimental endocarditis (IE) model due to DAP-resistant methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA),abstr A-4928. ASM Microbe,Boston, MA,16 to 20 June 2016.
  12. 12.↵
    1. Abdelhady W,
    2. Bayer AS,
    3. Seidl K,
    4. Moormeier DE,
    5. Bayles KW,
    6. Cheung A,
    7. Yeaman MR,
    8. Xiong YQ
    . 2014. Impact of vancomycin on sarA-mediated biofilm formation: role in persistent endovascular infections due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. J Infect Dis209:1231–1240. doi:10.1093/infdis/jiu007.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Seidl K,
    2. Chen L,
    3. Bayer AS,
    4. Hady WA,
    5. Kreiswirth BN,
    6. Xiong YQ
    . 2011. Relationship of agr expression and function with virulence and vancomycin treatment outcomes in experimental endocarditis due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother55:5631–5639. doi:10.1128/AAC.05251-11.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. 14.↵
    1. Xiong YQ,
    2. Fowler VG Jr,
    3. Yeaman MR,
    4. Perdreau-Remington F,
    5. Kreiswirth BN,
    6. Bayer AS
    . 2009. Phenotypic and genotypic characteristics of persistent methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia in vitro and in an experimental endocarditis model. J Infect Dis199:201–208. doi:10.1086/595738.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  15. 15.↵
    1. Chambers HF,
    2. Basuino L,
    3. Diep BA,
    4. Steenbergen J,
    5. Zhang S,
    6. Tattevin P,
    7. Alder J
    . 2009. Relationship between susceptibility to daptomycin in vitro and activity in vivo in a rabbit model of aortic valve endocarditis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother53:1463–1467. doi:10.1128/AAC.01307-08.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. 16.↵
    1. Kaatz GW,
    2. Lundstrom TS,
    3. Seo SM
    . 2006. Mechanisms of daptomycin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus. Int J Antimicrob Agents28:280–287. doi:10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2006.05.030.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  17. 17.↵
    1. Madrigal AG,
    2. Basuino L,
    3. Chambers HF
    . 2005. Efficacy of telavancin in a rabbit model of aortic valve endocarditis due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus or vancomycin-intermediate Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother49:3163–3165. doi:10.1128/AAC.49.8.3163-3165.2005.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. 18.↵
    1. Xiong YQ,
    2. Abdelhady W,
    3. Tang C,
    4. Bayer AS
    . 2016. Comparative efficacy of telavancin and daptomycin in experimental endocarditis due to multi-clonotype MRSA strains. J Antimicrob Chemother71:2890–2894. doi:10.1093/jac/dkw249.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Miro JM,
    2. Garcia-de-la-Maria C,
    3. Armero Y,
    4. de-Lazzari E,
    5. Soy D,
    6. Moreno A,
    7. del Rio A,
    8. Almela M,
    9. Mestres CA,
    10. Gatell JM,
    11. Jimenez-de-Anta MT,
    12. Marco F
    ,Hospital Clinic Experimental Endocarditis Study Group. 2007. Efficacy of telavancin in the treatment of experimental endocarditis due to glycopeptide-intermediate Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother51:2373–2377. doi:10.1128/AAC.01266-06.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. 20.
    1. Farrell DJ,
    2. Krause KM,
    3. Benton BM
    . 2011. In vitro activity of telavancin and comparator antimicrobial agents against a panel of genetically defined staphylococci. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis69:275–279. doi:10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2010.09.017.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Telavancin Is Active against Experimental Aortic Valve Endocarditis Caused by Daptomycin- and Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Strains
Wessam Abdelhady, Arnold S. Bayer, Rachelle Gonzales, Liang Li, Yan Q. Xiong
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Jan 2017, 61 (2) e01877-16; DOI: 10.1128/AAC.01877-16

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.
Telavancin Is Active against Experimental Aortic Valve Endocarditis Caused by Daptomycin- and Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Strains
(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
Telavancin Is Active against Experimental Aortic Valve Endocarditis Caused by Daptomycin- and Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Strains
Wessam Abdelhady, Arnold S. Bayer, Rachelle Gonzales, Liang Li, Yan Q. Xiong
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Jan 2017, 61 (2) e01877-16; DOI: 10.1128/AAC.01877-16
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • TEXT
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENT
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

KEYWORDS

aminoglycosides
Anti-Bacterial Agents
daptomycin
Endocarditis, Bacterial
methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus
TLV
DAPr MRSA
endocarditis
daptomycin resistance
MRSA
telavancin
infective endocarditis

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