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

Evaluation of Oritavancin Combinations with Rifampin, Gentamicin, or Linezolid against Prosthetic Joint Infection-Associated Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Biofilms by Time-Kill Assays

Qun Yan, Melissa J. Karau, Yash S. Raval, Robin Patel
Qun Yan
aDivision of Clinical Microbiology, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
bDepartment of Clinical Laboratory, Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Melissa J. Karau
aDivision of Clinical Microbiology, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Yash S. Raval
aDivision of Clinical Microbiology, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Robin Patel
aDivision of Clinical Microbiology, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
cDivision of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.00943-18
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

The antibiofilm activity of oritavancin in combination with rifampin, gentamicin, or linezolid was evaluated against 10 prosthetic joint infection (PJI)-related methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) isolates by time-kill assays. Oritavancin combined with rifampin demonstrated statistically significant bacterial reductions compared with those of either antimicrobial alone for all 10 isolates (P ≤ 0.001), with synergy being observed for 80% of the isolates. Oritavancin and rifampin combination therapy may be an option for treating MRSA PJI.

TEXT

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a serious complication of total joint arthroplasty (1). Staphylococcus aureus is a one of the most common organisms causing PJI (1, 2). S. aureus can attach to the surfaces of implanted materials and form dense biofilms that decrease susceptibility to antimicrobial agents (1, 3). Methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) PJI is particularly challenging to treat and has been associated with higher treatment failure rates than methicillin-susceptible S. aureus PJI (4, 5). Rifampin-based combination therapy is recommended by the Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA) guidelines for patients with staphylococcal PJI managed with debridement, antimicrobial agents, and implant retention (DAIR) (6). Rifampin is considered to have antibiofilm activity, but resistance to it is easily selected; the second antimicrobial agent is traditionally considered important not so much for its antibiofilm activity but to prevent emergence of rifampin resistance. If, however, the companion drugs to rifampin (or other drug combinations) were shown to have antibiofilm activity themselves, they may be considered for treating biofilm-associated infections, such as PJI.

Oritavancin is a semisynthetic lipoglycopeptide with activity against Gram-positive bacteria; it inhibits bacterial cell wall biosynthesis and disrupts bacterial membrane integrity (7). Oritavancin has demonstrated in vitro activity against staphylococcal, including S. aureus, biofilms (8–11). Previous studies have shown that oritavancin in combination with rifampin, gentamicin, moxifloxacin, linezolid, and some β-lactams has in vitro synergistic activity against planktonic S. aureus (12–14). However, the in vitro activity of oritavancin combination therapy against MRSA biofilms has not been evaluated. In the present study, we used novel biofilm time-kill assays to investigate the in vitro activity of oritavancin in combination with rifampin, gentamicin, or linezolid against PJI-associated MRSA biofilms.

Ten MRSA isolates recovered from patients with PJI between 2000 and 2016 at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, MN) were studied. MICs of oritavancin, rifampin, gentamicin, and linezolid (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO) were determined by broth microdilution following Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) guidelines (15). Supplemental 0.002% polysorbate 80 (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO) was added to oritavancin solutions throughout experimentation to prevent oritavancin binding to plastic surfaces (16). The minimum biofilm bactericidal concentration (MBBC) of each antimicrobial agent was determined with a Calgary biofilm device-based method after the biofilms were grown on pegs for 24 h (17). MIC and MBBC values are shown in Table 1. All 10 isolates were susceptible to the four tested antimicrobial agents according to CLSI and European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) guidelines (18, 19).

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

MIC and MBBC values for 10 MRSA isolates

Biofilm time-kill assays were performed to investigate the antibiofilm activity of antimicrobial agents alone and in combination against the 10 MRSA isolates. In brief, sterile Teflon (polytetrafluoroethylene) coupons (10 by 9 by 1 mm) were placed in tryptic soy broth (TSB) inoculated with ∼106 CFU/ml of the bacterial isolate and incubated at 37°C on an orbital shaker (120 rpm) for biofilm formation. After 24 h, Teflon coupons were rinsed with saline and incubated in oritavancin, rifampin, gentamicin, or linezolid in cation-adjusted Mueller-Hinton broth solutions alone or in combinations of oritavancin with rifampin, gentamicin, or linezolid at 37°C. The antimicrobial concentrations were equal to 1× MBBC values or the free peak concentration (fCmax) of the antimicrobial (i.e., 16 μg/ml for oritavancin [20], 4 μg/ml for rifampin [21], 12 μg/ml for gentamicin [22], and 18 μg/ml for linezolid [23]) when the MBBC values were greater than fCmax. Biofilm bacterial densities on Teflon coupons were measured before (time zero) and at 8 and 24 h after incubation in the antimicrobial solutions. To determine biofilm bacterial densities, Teflon coupons were rinsed with saline to remove the planktonic bacteria and placed in tubes containing 2 ml saline, followed by 30 s of vortexing and 5 min of sonication (40 ± 2 kHz), followed by an additional 30 s of vortexing. Then, suspensions were serially diluted in saline, and 100 μl of each dilution was placed on blood agar plates. After incubation at 37°C for 24 h, viable colonies were counted and reported as log10 CFU/cm2. For suspensions without growth on blood agar, 8 ml TSB was added and incubated for 24 h at 37°C and subcultured on blood agar for evidence of growth. The limit of detection was 0.1 log10 CFU/cm2 (24). Biofilm time-kill assays were performed in triplicate. Bactericidal activity was defined as a ≥3-log10 CFU/cm2 reduction at 24 h compared to the starting biofilm bacterial density at time zero (25). Synergy was defined as a ≥2-log10 CFU/cm2 decrease at 24 h for the antimicrobial combination compared with that of the most active single antimicrobial (25). The combination of oritavancin with rifampin or gentamicin demonstrated bactericidal activity against all 10 isolates, whereas bactericidal activity was not achieved by either oritavancin or rifampin alone; interestingly, however, gentamicin alone demonstrated bactericidal activity against 80% (8/10) of the isolates (Fig. 1). Reductions of biofilm bacterial density on Teflon coupons after 8 and 24 h of incubation with single antimicrobials were compared with those of antimicrobial combinations by one-way analysis of variance with Tukey's post hoc test (GraphPad Prism, version 7.0 GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA). A P value of ≤0.05 was considered significant. At 24 h, oritavancin combined with rifampin demonstrated a significant reduction in biofilm bacterial density compared with that of either antimicrobial alone against all 10 isolates (P ≤ 0.001). Oritavancin combined with gentamicin exhibited significant reductions in biofilm density compared with those of the antimicrobials alone for 30% (3/10) of the isolates (P ≤ 0.001), and oritavancin combined with linezolid showed significant reductions in biofilm density compared with those of the antimicrobials alone for 80% (8/10) of the isolates (P ≤ 0.01) (Fig. 2). Based on the synergy definition of a ≥2-log10 CFU/cm2 decrease at 24 h for the antimicrobial combination compared with the most active single antimicrobial, synergy was observed for 80% (8/10) of the isolates with oritavancin in combination with rifampin, 20% (2/10) of the isolates with oritavancin in combination with gentamicin, and 30% (3/10) of the isolates with oritavancin in combination with linezolid. Detailed data of bacterial concentrations and reductions in log10 CFU/cm2 at 8 and 24 h in biofilm time-kill assays can be found in Table S1 in the supplemental material.

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

Biofilm time-kill curves against 10 MRSA isolates. (A) IDRL-6169, oritavancin, rifampin, and gentamicin at 1× MBBC. (B) IDRL-7126, oritavancin and gentamicin at 1× MBBC, rifampin at fCmax. (C) IDRL-7680, oritavancin and gentamicin at fCmax, rifampin at 1× MBBC. (D) IDRL-8302, oritavancin and rifampin at 1× MBBC, gentamicin at fCmax. (E) IDRL-8454, oritavancin, rifampin, and gentamicin at 1× MBBC. (F) IDRL-8459, oritavancin at 1× MBBC, gentamicin and rifampin at fCmax. (G) IDRL-8508, oritavancin, rifampin, and gentamicin at 1× MBBC. (H) IDRL-9121, oritavancin and rifampin at 1× MBBC, gentamicin at fCmax. (I) IDRL-9337, oritavancin, rifampin, and gentamicin at 1× MBBC. (J) IDRL-11468, oritavancin and gentamicin at 1× MBBC, rifampin at fCmax. All isolates were tested with linezolid at fCmax. ORI, oritavancin; RIF, rifampin; GEN, gentamicin; LZD, linezolid. Each isolate was tested in triplicate, and data are presented as means of biofilm densities.

FIG 2
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 2

Reductions in biofilm bacterial densities at 8 and 24 h after exposure to antimicrobial alone or in combination. (A) IDRL-6169, oritavancin combined with rifampin, gentamicin, or linezolid reduced bacterial densities compared with single antimicrobials (P < 0.001). (B) IDRL-7126, oritavancin combined with rifampin reduced bacterial densities compared with single antimicrobials (P < 0.001). (C) IDRL-7680, oritavancin combined with rifampin or linezolid reduced bacterial densities compared with single antimicrobials (P ≤ 0.001). (D) IDRL-8302, oritavancin combined with rifampin, gentamicin, or linezolid reduced bacterial densities compared with single antimicrobials (P < 0.001). (E) IDRL-8454, oritavancin combined with rifampin or linezolid reduced bacterial densities compared with single antimicrobials (P < 0.001). (F) IDRL-8459, oritavancin combined with rifampin or linezolid reduced bacterial densities compared with single antimicrobials (P < 0.01). (G) IDRL-8508, oritavancin combined with rifampin, gentamicin, or linezolid reduced bacterial densities compared with single antimicrobials (P < 0.0001). (H) IDRL-9121, oritavancin combined with rifampin reduced bacterial densities compared with single antimicrobials (P = 0.001). (I) IDRL-9337, oritavancin combined with rifampin or linezolid reduced bacterial densities compared with single antimicrobials (P ≤ 0.01). (J) IDRL-11468, oritavancin combined with rifampin or linezolid reduced biofilm densities compared with single antimicrobials (P < 0.0001). P values are calculated for reduction at 24 h and presented as the number to cover all P values applied. See details in Table S1 in the supplemental material. ORI, oritavancin; RIF, rifampin; GEN, gentamicin; LZD, linezolid. Data presented are means ± SD (n = 3).

Synergy between oritavancin and rifampin may be explained by oritavancin's ability to inhibit cell wall synthesis and disrupt bacterial membrane integrity (7), facilitating rifampin's entry into bacterial cells. In addition, oritavancin has been reported to inhibit RNA synthesis itself (26), which, when combined with rifampin's RNA polymerase inhibiting activity, may enhance synergistic activity between them (12). Time-kill assays have been widely used to assess in vitro synergy between antimicrobial agents; antibiotic concentration selection in time-kill assays is debatable. Some studies have selected antibiotic concentrations approximating the fCmax (21, 22), whereas others have chosen antibiotic concentrations based on MICs (for planktonic studies) or MBBCs (for biofilm studies) (25). We selected concentrations representing MBBCs if they were lower than the fCmax. We acknowledge the limitation that the fCmax may not reflect bone concentrations. Of note, oritavancin is administered as a single 1,200-mg intravenous infusion; in this study, the oritavancin non-protein-bound plasma concentration at 24 h after dosing was used as the fCmax (20). Although oritavancin has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration only for treating adult patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections, our study suggests that the combination of oritavancin and rifampin deserves further study as an option for treating PJIs caused by MRSA.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases under award number R21 AI125870.

R.P. reports grants from CD Diagnostics, BioFire, Curetis, Merck, Hutchison Biofilm Medical Solutions, Accelerate Diagnostics, Allergan, and The Medicines Company. R.P. is or has been a consultant to Curetis, Specific Technologies, Selux Dx, GenMark Diagnostics, PathoQuest, and Genentech; monies are paid to Mayo Clinic. In addition, R.P. has a patent on Bordetella pertussis/parapertussis PCR issued, a patent on a device/method for sonication with royalties paid by Samsung to Mayo Clinic, and a patent on an antibiofilm substance issued. R.P. receives travel reimbursement from ASM and IDSA, an editor's stipend from ASM and IDSA, and honoraria from the NBME, Up-to-Date, and the Infectious Diseases Board Review Course.

Q.Y., M.J.K., and Y.S.R. have no conflicts to declare.

FOOTNOTES

    • Received 7 May 2018.
    • Returned for modification 6 June 2018.
    • Accepted 8 July 2018.
    • Accepted manuscript posted online 16 July 2018.
  • Supplemental material for this article may be found at https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.00943-18.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Tande AJ,
    2. Patel R
    . 2014. Prosthetic joint infection. Clin Microbiol Rev 27:302–345. doi:10.1128/CMR.00111-13.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Yan Q,
    2. Karau MJ,
    3. Greenwood-Quaintance KE,
    4. Mandrekar JN,
    5. Osmon D,
    6. Abdel MP,
    7. Patel R
    . 2018. Comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of periprosthetic tissue culture in blood culture bottles to prosthesis sonication fluid culture for diagnosis of prosthetic joint infection using Bayesian Latent Class Modeling and IDSA PJI criteria for classification. J Clin Microbiol 56:e00319-18. doi:10.1128/JCM.00319-18.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Singh S,
    2. Singh SK,
    3. Chowdhury I,
    4. Singh R
    . 2017. Understanding the mechanism of bacterial biofilms resistance to antimicrobial agents. Open Microbiol J 11:53–62. doi:10.2174/1874285801711010053.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  4. 4.↵
    1. Parry MC,
    2. Duncan CP
    . 2014. The challenge of methicillin resistant staphylococcal infection after total hip replacement: overlooked or overstated? Bone Joint J 96-B(Suppl A):60–65.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Leung F,
    2. Richards CJ,
    3. Garbuz DS,
    4. Masri BA,
    5. Duncan CP
    . 2011. Two-stage total hip arthroplasty: how often does it control methicillin-resistant infection? Clin Orthop Relat Res 469:1009–1015. doi:10.1007/s11999-010-1725-6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Osmon DR,
    2. Berbari EF,
    3. Berendt AR,
    4. Lew D,
    5. Zimmerli W,
    6. Steckelberg JM,
    7. Rao N,
    8. Hanssen A,
    9. Wilson WR
    , Infectious Diseases Society of America. 2013. Diagnosis and management of prosthetic joint infection: clinical practice guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis 56:e1–e25. doi:10.1093/cid/cis803.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Zhanel GG,
    2. Schweizer F,
    3. Karlowsky JA
    . 2012. Oritavancin: mechanism of action. Clin Infect Dis 54(Suppl 3):S214–S219. doi:10.1093/cid/cir920.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Arhin FF,
    2. Draghi DC,
    3. Pillar CM,
    4. Parr TR, Jr,
    5. Moeck G,
    6. Sahm DF
    . 2009. Comparative in vitro activity profile of oritavancin against recent Gram-positive clinical isolates. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 53:4762–4771. doi:10.1128/AAC.00952-09.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    1. Duncan LR,
    2. Sader HS,
    3. Flamm RK,
    4. Jones RN,
    5. Mendes RE
    . 2016. Oritavancin in vitro activity against contemporary Staphylococcus aureus isolates responsible for invasive community- and healthcare-associated infections among patients in the United States (2013-2014). Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 86:303–306. doi:10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2016.07.025.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  10. 10.↵
    1. Karlowsky JA,
    2. Walkty AJ,
    3. Baxter MR,
    4. Arhin FF,
    5. Moeck G,
    6. Adam HJ,
    7. Zhanel GG
    . 2017. In vitro activity of oritavancin against Gram-positive pathogens isolated in Canadian hospital laboratories from 2011 to 2015. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 87:349–356. doi:10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2017.01.006.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  11. 11.↵
    1. Belley A,
    2. McKay GA,
    3. Arhin FF,
    4. Sarmiento I,
    5. Beaulieu S,
    6. Fadhil I,
    7. Parr TR, Jr,
    8. Moeck G
    . 2010. Oritavancin disrupts membrane integrity of Staphylococcus aureus and vancomycin-resistant enterococci to effect rapid bacterial killing. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 54:5369–5371. doi:10.1128/AAC.00760-10.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. Belley A,
    2. Neesham-Grenon E,
    3. Arhin FF,
    4. McKay GA,
    5. Parr TR, Jr,
    6. Moeck G
    . 2008. Assessment by time-kill methodology of the synergistic effects of oritavancin in combination with other antimicrobial agents against Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 52:3820–3822. doi:10.1128/AAC.00361-08.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    1. Lin G,
    2. Pankuch G,
    3. Appelbaum PC,
    4. Kosowska-Shick K
    . 2014. Antistaphylococcal activity of oritavancin and its synergistic effect in combination with other antimicrobial agents. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 58:6251–6254. doi:10.1128/AAC.02932-14.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. 14.↵
    1. Smith JR,
    2. Yim J,
    3. Raut A,
    4. Rybak MJ
    . 2016. Oritavancin combinations with beta-lactams against multidrug-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and vancomycin-resistant enterococci. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 60:2352–2358. doi:10.1128/AAC.03006-15.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. 2015. Methods for dilution antimicrobial susceptibility tests for bacteria that grow aerobically; approved standard—10th ed. CLSI document M07-A10. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, Wayne, PA.
  16. 16.↵
    1. Yan Q,
    2. Karau MJ,
    3. Patel R
    . 2018. Evaluation of non-tissue culture- versus tissue culture-treated microplates for oritavancin susceptibility testing. J Clin Microbiol 56:e02001-17. doi:10.1128/JCM.02001-17.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  17. 17.↵
    1. Ceri H,
    2. Olson ME,
    3. Stremick C,
    4. Read RR,
    5. Morck D,
    6. Buret A
    . 1999. The Calgary Biofilm Device: new technology for rapid determination of antibiotic susceptibilities of bacterial biofilms. J Clin Microbiol 37:1771–1776.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. 18.↵
    Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. 2018. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing—28th ed. CLSI document M100. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, Wayne, PA.
  19. 19.↵
    European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST). 2018. Breakpoint tables for interpretation of MICs and zone diameters, version 8.0. http://www.eucast.org/fileadmin/src/media/PDFs/EUCAST_files/Breakpoint_tables/v_8.0_Breakpoint_Tables.pdf.
  20. 20.↵
    1. Arhin FF,
    2. Sarmiento I,
    3. Moeck G
    . 2014. In vitro activities of oritavancin and comparators against meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) isolates harbouring the novel mecC gene. Int J Antimicrob Agents 44:65–68. doi:10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2014.03.015.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Werth BJ
    . 2017. Exploring the pharmacodynamic interactions between tedizolid and other orally bioavailable antimicrobials against Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis. J Antimicrob Chemother 72:1410–1414. doi:10.1093/jac/dkw588.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  22. 22.↵
    1. Ruppen C,
    2. Hemphill A,
    3. Sendi P
    . 2017. In vitro activity of gentamicin as an adjunct to penicillin against biofilm group B Streptococcus. J Antimicrob Chemother 72:444–447. doi:10.1093/jac/dkw447.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Parra-Ruiz J,
    2. Bravo-Molina A,
    3. Pena-Monje A,
    4. Hernandez-Quero J
    . 2012. Activity of linezolid and high-dose daptomycin, alone or in combination, in an in vitro model of Staphylococcus aureus biofilm. J Antimicrob Chemother 67:2682–2685. doi:10.1093/jac/dks272.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  24. 24.↵
    1. del Pozo JL,
    2. Rouse MS,
    3. Mandrekar JN,
    4. Sampedro MF,
    5. Steckelberg JM,
    6. Patel R
    . 2009. Effect of electrical current on the activities of antimicrobial agents against Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Staphylococcus aureus, and Staphylococcus epidermidis biofilms. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 53:35–40. doi:10.1128/AAC.00237-08.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. 25.↵
    1. Barber KE,
    2. Werth BJ,
    3. McRoberts JP,
    4. Rybak MJ
    . 2014. A novel approach utilizing biofilm time-kill curves to assess the bactericidal activity of ceftaroline combinations against biofilm-producing methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 58:2989–2992. doi:10.1128/AAC.02764-13.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. 26.↵
    1. Arhin FF,
    2. Sarmiento I,
    3. Parr TR, et al
    . Mechanisms of action of oritavancin in Staphylococcus aureus, abstr C1-1471. Abstr 47th Intersci Conf Antimicrob Agents Chemother, Chicago, IL, 17 to 20 September 2007.
  • Copyright © 2018 American Society for Microbiology.

All Rights Reserved.

PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Evaluation of Oritavancin Combinations with Rifampin, Gentamicin, or Linezolid against Prosthetic Joint Infection-Associated Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Biofilms by Time-Kill Assays
Qun Yan, Melissa J. Karau, Yash S. Raval, Robin Patel
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Sep 2018, 62 (10) e00943-18; DOI: 10.1128/AAC.00943-18

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.
Evaluation of Oritavancin Combinations with Rifampin, Gentamicin, or Linezolid against Prosthetic Joint Infection-Associated Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Biofilms by Time-Kill Assays
(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
Evaluation of Oritavancin Combinations with Rifampin, Gentamicin, or Linezolid against Prosthetic Joint Infection-Associated Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Biofilms by Time-Kill Assays
Qun Yan, Melissa J. Karau, Yash S. Raval, Robin Patel
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Sep 2018, 62 (10) e00943-18; DOI: 10.1128/AAC.00943-18
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • TEXT
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

KEYWORDS

oritavancin
rifampin
gentamicin
linezolid
methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus
biofilm

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