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 Activity of Iclaprim against Isolates in Two Phase 3 Clinical Trials (REVIVE-1 and -2) for Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections

Stephanie Noviello, Sophie Magnet, Stephen Hawser, David B. Huang
Stephanie Noviello
aMotif BioSciences, Princeton, New Jersey, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sophie Magnet
bIHMA Europe Sàrl, Monthey, Switzerland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Stephen Hawser
bIHMA Europe Sàrl, Monthey, Switzerland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
David B. Huang
aMotif BioSciences, Princeton, New Jersey, USA
cRutgers New Jersey Medical School, Trenton, New Jersey, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.02239-18
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

Iclaprim, a selective bacterial dihydrofolate reductase inhibitor, and other antibiotics were tested against Gram-positive isolates from two phase 3 studies of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs) (REVIVE-1 and -2). Seven hundred ninety baseline isolates, including Staphylococcus aureus, β-hemolytic streptococci, and Streptococcus anginosus group, underwent antibacterial susceptibility testing. Iclaprim had an MIC90 of 0.12 μg/ml for S. aureus (0.12 μg/ml for methicillin susceptible, 0.25 μg/ml for methicillin resistant), 0.25 μg/ml for β-hemolytic streptococci, and 0.008 μg/ml for S. anginosus group. Iclaprim demonstrated potent activity against these Gram-positive ABSSSI isolates.

INTRODUCTION

Skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) are among the most common causes of infection in patients of all ages (1). Many of these infections result in hospital admissions or prolonged hospital stays (1, 2). The etiology of >80% of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs) is Gram-positive bacteria (3); Staphylococcus aureus is the most common pathogen of wound infections, abscesses, and cellulitis (2). Currently, many antibiotics are approved for the treatment of SSTIs, although several have issues related to safety and/or resistance (4–8). Therefore, there still remains a medical need for well-tolerated antimicrobial agents active against antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

Iclaprim is a selective bacterial dihydrofolate reductase (DHFR) inhibitor, designed to have increased potency compared with trimethoprim and to be active against some isolates with trimethoprim resistance (9–11). Iclaprim has demonstrated in vitro and in vivo activity against Gram-positive pathogens, including methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA), linezolid-resistant S. aureus, daptomycin-nonsusceptible S. aureus, and vancomycin-resistant S. aureus (12). Iclaprim does not need to be combined with a sulfonamide, which is commonly associated with adverse events, including renal toxicity, hepatotoxicity, blood dyscrasias, anaphylaxis, and hypersensitivity reactions (13).

In two phase 3 clinical trials (REVIVE-1 and -2), iclaprim showed early response rates comparable with those of vancomycin among patients treated for ABSSSI (14–16). This evaluation reports the in vitro activities of iclaprim against baseline pathogens isolated from ABSSSIs in these trials.

Overall, 1,198 patients were included in the intent-to-treat population in the REVIVE-1 (n = 598) and REVIVE-2 (n = 600) trials, as previously described (14, 15). Both studies were 600-patient, double-blind, randomized (1:1), active-control trials among patients with ABSSSIs that compared iclaprim 80 mg fixed dose with vancomycin 15 mg/kg (adjusted for renal function), both administered intravenously every 12 h for 5 to 14 days.

At baseline, ABSSSIs were sampled for microbiological culture. In total, 790 baseline isolates of S. aureus, β-hemolytic streptococci, and S. anginosus group were collected. Of these, 594 were S. aureus, including 322 methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA) and 272 MRSA. Of the Streptococcus spp., 83 isolates were β-hemolytic streptococci (52 Streptococcus pyogenes, 11 Streptococcus agalactiae, and 20 Streptococcus dysgalactiae) and 113 isolates were S. anginosus group (including S. anginosus, Streptococcus intermedius, and Streptococcus constellatus). Isolates were collected in the United States (79.3%), Europe (20.4%), and Latin America (0.4%).

Isolates were analyzed at an independent reference laboratory (IHMA, Europe Sàrl, Monthey, Switzerland) for broth microdilution susceptibility testing conducted in accordance with CLSI M7 (17). Cation-adjusted Mueller-Hinton broth (CA-MHB) was used as the test medium, and CA-MHB was supplemented with 5% lysed horse blood for the testing of streptococci. Comparator antibiotic MIC results were within the CLSI published ranges against S. aureus ATCC 29213. Quality control ranges and interpretive criteria for comparator compounds were previously described (18). There are no published breakpoints for iclaprim. To identify plasmid-encoded and chromosomally encoded trimethoprim resistance genes, DNA extraction and PCR amplification were performed (19).

Iclaprim was active against S. aureus (MSSA and MRSA) and β-hemolytic streptococci, including S. pyogenes, S. agalactiae, and S. dysgalactiae, based on MIC50/MIC90 values (Table 1). Based on the MIC90, the activity of iclaprim was 4- to 16-fold more potent than that of trimethoprim alone and at least as active as trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole against S. aureus, including MRSA and β-hemolytic streptococci. Six percent of isolates had an iclaprim MIC of ≥8 μg/ml; all were S. aureus except for one S. anginosus group isolate.

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

MIC50 and MIC90 values for iclaprim and comparators against 790 isolates from patients in phase 3 ABSSSI clinical trials REVIVE-1 and -2

Figure 1 shows the activity of iclaprim against isolates from the United States and Europe. For MSSA and β-hemolytic streptococci isolates, MIC50/MIC90 values were identical or within 2-fold in the United States and Europe, except for MRSA, for which the MIC50/MIC90s in Europe were elevated (0.12 and >8 μg/ml, respectively) compared with those in the United States (0.03 and 0.25 μg/ml, respectively). Because of the small number of MRSA isolates from Europe (n = 11), this difference was difficult to interpret. However, surveillance data from 2015 to 2016 of 160 MRSA isolates from Europe reported MIC50/MIC90 values of 0.03 and 0.06 μg/ml, respectively, which were similar to those in North America (0.03 and 0.12 μg/ml, respectively; n = 154) (20).

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

Iclaprim MIC distribution for Gram-positive pathogens in the United States (black bar; n = 632) and Europe (white bar; n = 155); 3 (0.4%) isolates from Latin America not included.

Iclaprim MIC90 values were 0.12 μg/ml for S. aureus in the REVIVE studies. The MIC90 values for trimethoprim were 2 μg/ml, and those for trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole were ≤0.12 μg/ml. Iclaprim demonstrated similar activity against MSSA and MRSA, with MIC90 values of 0.12 μg/ml and 0.25 μg/ml, respectively. Iclaprim had increased potency compared with trimethoprim (MIC90, 2 and 4 μg/ml against MSSA and MRSA, respectively). For trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, the MIC90 was ≤0.12 μg/ml for both MSSA and MRSA isolates. Against MRSA, iclaprim had at least 2-fold greater potency than vancomycin (MIC90, 1 μg/ml), linezolid (MIC90, 2 μg/ml), and daptomycin (MIC90, 0.5 μg/ml).

Increased potency of iclaprim relative to trimethoprim was consistent across the tested β-hemolytic streptococci. Based on MIC90, iclaprim was 4-fold more potent than trimethoprim and 2-fold more potent than trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole against S. pyogenes, with MIC90 values of 0.12 μg/ml. For S. agalactiae and S. dysgalactiae isolates, the MIC90 values for iclaprim were 0.5 and 0.12 μg/ml, respectively, whereas trimethoprim had MIC90 values of 4 and 1 μg/ml, respectively. Similar MIC90 values were noted with iclaprim and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. Iclaprim had an MIC90 value of 0.008 μg/ml against S. anginosus group isolates, similar to that of trimethoprim and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (≤0.12 and 0.06 μg/ml, respectively).

Outcomes by MIC for isolates from patients treated with iclaprim showed that most patients had low iclaprim MIC levels and achieved early clinical response (Table 2). Among the 37 isolates with MICs of ≥8 μg/ml to iclaprim, molecular characterizations for the presence of trimethoprim resistance genes dfrA, dfrC, dfrD, dfrF, dfrG, and dfrK and polymorphisms within the DHFR gene were evaluated. The isolates consisted of S. aureus (n = 36) and S. anginosus group (n = 1). Thirty-five isolates (all S. aureus) were positive for dfr and DHFR. Both remaining isolates (1 S. aureus and 1 S. anginosus group) were positive for the DHFR gene only. Plasmid-encoded dfr genes occurred in 9 S. aureus isolates for dfrA and 26 for dfrG. Gene sequencing revealed that the vast majority of DHFR genes had the wild-type sequence; the F98Y mutation was not identified in any isolates.

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

Early clinical response in the iclaprim arm by iclaprim MIC (REVIVE-1 and -2)

Iclaprim was developed as monotherapy for ABSSSI treatment and is in development for hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia. Based on MIC90, iclaprim showed potent in vitro activity against S. aureus, including MRSA, β-hemolytic streptococci, and S. anginosus group from the phase 3 ABSSSI studies REVIVE-1 and -2. Iclaprim was more potent than trimethoprim alone and had similar activity to trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole against the Gram-positive clinical isolates collected. Furthermore, iclaprim had greater potency against MRSA than vancomycin, linezolid, and daptomycin, which are standard-of-care Gram-positive therapies for the treatment of MRSA-suspected ABSSSI. In addition, based on MIC90, iclaprim exhibited more potency than trimethoprim and similar potency to trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole against S. pyogenes, similar to the other tested β-hemolytic streptococci.

In conclusion, based on MIC90, iclaprim showed increased potency against Gram-positive pathogens relative to trimethoprim and similar potency to trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. Iclaprim has the potential to offer safety advantages and cost avoidance for treating patients with ABSSSIs and suspected/confirmed MRSA at risk of vancomycin acute kidney injury, including patients with preexisting moderate/severe renal impairment, obesity, and/or diabetes. Therefore, iclaprim may be an important new therapeutic option for the treatment of ABSSSIs caused by Gram-positive bacteria, including multidrug-resistant bacteria.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Chris Pillar for critical review of this article.

This study was supported by Motif BioSciences, Inc., New York, NY. IHMA Europe was funded to perform these studies by Motif BioSciences, Inc.

S.H. and S.M. are employed by IHMA Europe. S.N. and D.B.H. are employees of Motif BioSciences.

FOOTNOTES

    • Received 23 October 2018.
    • Returned for modification 27 November 2018.
    • Accepted 3 January 2019.
    • Accepted manuscript posted online 14 January 2019.
  • Copyright © 2019 American Society for Microbiology.

All Rights Reserved.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Stevens DL,
    2. Bisno AL,
    3. Chambers HF,
    4. Dellinger EP,
    5. Goldstein EJ,
    6. Gorbach SL,
    7. Hirschmann JV,
    8. Kaplan SL,
    9. Montoya JG,
    10. Wade JC
    . 2014. Practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of skin and soft tissue infections: 2014 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis 59:e10–e52. doi:10.1093/cid/ciu296.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Tognetti L,
    2. Martinelli C,
    3. Berti S,
    4. Hercogova J,
    5. Lotti T,
    6. Leoncini F,
    7. Moretti S
    . 2012. Bacterial skin and soft tissue infections: review of the epidemiology, microbiology, aetiopathogenesis and treatment: a collaboration between dermatologists and infectivologists. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 26:931–941. doi:10.1111/j.1468-3083.2011.04416.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Ray GT,
    2. Suaya JA,
    3. Baxter R
    . 2013. Incidence, microbiology, and patient characteristics of skin and soft-tissue infections in a US population: a retrospective population-based study. BMC Infect Dis 13:252. doi:10.1186/1471-2334-13-252.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Steinkraus G,
    2. White R,
    3. Friedrich L
    . 2007. Vancomycin MIC creep in non-vancomycin-intermediate Staphylococcus aureus (VISA), vancomycin-susceptible clinical methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) blood isolates from 2001-05. J Antimicrob Chemother 60:788–794. doi:10.1093/jac/dkm258.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  5. 5.↵
    1. Sanchez Garcia M,
    2. De la Torre MA,
    3. Morales G,
    4. Pelaez B,
    5. Tolon MJ,
    6. Domingo S,
    7. Candel FJ,
    8. Andrade R,
    9. Arribi A,
    10. Garcia N,
    11. Martinez Sagasti F,
    12. Fereres J,
    13. Picazo J
    . 2010. Clinical outbreak of linezolid-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in an intensive care unit. JAMA 303:2260–2264. doi:10.1001/jama.2010.757.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  6. 6.↵
    1. Mishra NN,
    2. Bayer AS,
    3. Tran TT,
    4. Shamoo Y,
    5. Mileykovskaya E,
    6. Dowhan W,
    7. Guan Z,
    8. Arias CA
    . 2012. Daptomycin resistance in enterococci is associated with distinct alterations of cell membrane phospholipid content. PLoS One 7:e43958. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0043958.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  7. 7.↵
    1. Steenbergen JN,
    2. Alder J,
    3. Thorne GM,
    4. Tally FP
    . 2005. Daptomycin: a lipopeptide antibiotic for the treatment of serious Gram-positive infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 55:283–288. doi:10.1093/jac/dkh546.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  8. 8.↵
    1. Long SW,
    2. Olsen RJ,
    3. Mehta SC,
    4. Palzkill T,
    5. Cernoch PL,
    6. Perez KK,
    7. Musick WL,
    8. Rosato AE,
    9. Musser JM
    . 2014. PBP2a mutations causing high-level ceftaroline resistance in clinical methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolates. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 58:6668–6674. doi:10.1128/AAC.03622-14.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    1. Huang DB,
    2. File TM, Jr,
    3. Dryden M,
    4. Corey GR,
    5. Torres A,
    6. Wilcox MH
    . 2018. Surveillance of iclaprim activity: in vitro susceptibility of gram-positive pathogens collected from 2012-2014 from the United States, Asia Pacific, Latin American and Europe. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 90:329–334. doi:10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2017.12.001.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  10. 10.↵
    1. Sader HS,
    2. Fritsche TR,
    3. Jones RN
    . 2009. Potency and bactericidal activity of iclaprim against recent clinical Gram-positive isolates. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 53:2171–2175. doi:10.1128/AAC.00129-09.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    1. Schneider P,
    2. Hawser S,
    3. Islam K
    . 2003. Iclaprim, a novel diaminopyrimidine with potent activity on trimethoprim sensitive and resistant bacteria. Bioorg Med Chem Lett 13:4217–4221.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Huang DB,
    2. Hawser S,
    3. Gemmell CG,
    4. Sahm DF
    . 2017. In vitro activity of iclaprim against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus nonsusceptible to daptomycin, linezolid, or vancomycin: a pilot study. Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol 2017:1. doi:10.1155/2017/3948626.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  13. 13.↵
    1. Ho JMW,
    2. Juurlink DN
    . 2011. Considerations when prescribing trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. CMAJ 183:1851–1858. doi:10.1503/cmaj.111152.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  14. 14.↵
    1. Huang DB,
    2. O'Riordan W,
    3. Overcash JS,
    4. Heller B,
    5. Amin F,
    6. File TM,
    7. Wilcox MH,
    8. Torres A,
    9. Dryden M,
    10. Holland TL,
    11. McLeroth P,
    12. Shukla R,
    13. Corey GR
    . 2018. A phase 3, randomized, double-blind, multicenter study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of intravenous iclaprim versus vancomycin for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections suspected or confirmed to be due to Gram-positive pathogens: REVIVE-1. Clin Infect Dis 66:1222–1229. doi:10.1093/cid/cix987.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  15. 15.↵
    1. Holland TL,
    2. O'Riordan W,
    3. McManus A,
    4. Shin E,
    5. Borghei A,
    6. File TM, Jr,
    7. Wilcox MH,
    8. Torres A,
    9. Dryden M,
    10. Lodise T,
    11. Oguri T,
    12. Corey GR,
    13. McLeroth P,
    14. Shukla R,
    15. Huang DB
    . 2018. A phase 3, randomized, double-blind, multicenter study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of intravenous iclaprim versus vancomycin for treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections suspected or confirmed to be due to Gram-positive pathogens (REVIVE-2 study). Antimicrob Agents Chemother 62:e02580-17. doi:10.1128/AAC.02580-17.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. 16.↵
    1. Huang DB,
    2. Corey GR,
    3. Holland TL,
    4. Lodise T,
    5. O'Riordan W,
    6. Wilcox MH,
    7. File TM, Jr,
    8. Dryden M,
    9. Balser B,
    10. Desplats E,
    11. Torres A
    . 2018. Pooled analysis of the phase 3 REVIVE trials: randomised, double-blind studies to evaluate the safety and efficacy of iclaprim versus vancomycin for treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections. Int J Antimicrob Agents 52:233–240. doi:10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2018.05.012.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  17. 17.↵
    Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. 2018. Methods for dilution antimicrobial susceptibility tests for bacteria that grow aerobically; 11th approved standard. CLSI document M07. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, Wayne, PA.
  18. 18.↵
    Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. 2018. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing; 28th informational supplement. CLSI document M100. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, Wayne, PA.
  19. 19.↵
    1. Bergmann R,
    2. Van der Linden M,
    3. Chhatwal GS,
    4. Nitsche-Schmitz P
    . 2014. Factors that cause trimethoprim resistance in Streptococcus pyogenes. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 58:2281. doi:10.1128/AAC.02282-13.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. 20.↵
    1. Huang DB,
    2. Magnet S,
    3. De Angelis S,
    4. Holland TL,
    5. File TM,
    6. Dryden M,
    7. Corey GR,
    8. Torres A,
    9. Wilcox MH
    . 2018. Surveillance of iclaprim activity: in vitro susceptibility of Gram-positive skin infection pathogens collected from 2015-2016 from North America and Europe. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 93:154–158. doi:10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2018.09.002.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
In Vitro Activity of Iclaprim against Isolates in Two Phase 3 Clinical Trials (REVIVE-1 and -2) for Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections
Stephanie Noviello, Sophie Magnet, Stephen Hawser, David B. Huang
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Mar 2019, 63 (4) e02239-18; DOI: 10.1128/AAC.02239-18

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.
In Vitro Activity of Iclaprim against Isolates in Two Phase 3 Clinical Trials (REVIVE-1 and -2) for Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections
(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 Activity of Iclaprim against Isolates in Two Phase 3 Clinical Trials (REVIVE-1 and -2) for Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections
Stephanie Noviello, Sophie Magnet, Stephen Hawser, David B. Huang
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Mar 2019, 63 (4) e02239-18; DOI: 10.1128/AAC.02239-18
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • INTRODUCTION
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

KEYWORDS

Gram-positive bacteria
iclaprim
in vitro activity
skin infections

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