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
Clinical Therapeutics

In Vitro Activity of Eravacycline against Gram-Positive Bacteria Isolated in Clinical Laboratories Worldwide from 2013 to 2017

Ian Morrissey, Stephen Hawser, Sibylle H. Lob, James A. Karlowsky, Matteo Bassetti, G. Ralph Corey, Melanie Olesky, Joseph Newman, Corey Fyfe
Ian Morrissey
aIHMA Europe Sàrl, Monthey, Switzerland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Stephen Hawser
aIHMA Europe Sàrl, Monthey, Switzerland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sibylle H. Lob
bInternational Health Management Associates, Inc., Schaumburg, Illinois, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
James A. Karlowsky
cDepartment of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Max Rady College of Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Matteo Bassetti
dInfectious Diseases Clinic, Department of Medicine, University of Udine, Udine, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
G. Ralph Corey
eDuke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Melanie Olesky
fTetraphase Pharmaceuticals, Watertown, Massachusetts, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Joseph Newman
fTetraphase Pharmaceuticals, Watertown, Massachusetts, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Corey Fyfe
fTetraphase Pharmaceuticals, Watertown, Massachusetts, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.01715-19
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

Eravacycline is a novel, fully synthetic fluorocycline antibiotic being developed for the treatment of serious infections, including those caused by resistant Gram-positive pathogens. Here, we evaluated the in vitro activities of eravacycline and comparator antimicrobial agents against a recent global collection of frequently encountered clinical isolates of Gram-positive bacteria. The CLSI broth microdilution method was used to determine in vitro MIC data for isolates of Enterococcus spp. (n = 2,807), Staphylococcus spp. (n = 4,331), and Streptococcus spp. (n = 3,373) isolated primarily from respiratory, intra-abdominal, urinary, and skin specimens by clinical laboratories in 37 countries on three continents from 2013 to 2017. Susceptibilities were interpreted using both CLSI and EUCAST breakpoints. There were no substantive differences (a >1-doubling-dilution increase or decrease) in eravacycline MIC90 values for different species/organism groups over time or by region. Eravacycline showed MIC50 and MIC90 results of 0.06 and 0.12 μg/ml, respectively, when tested against Staphylococcus aureus, regardless of methicillin susceptibility. The MIC90 values of eravacycline for Staphylococcus epidermidis and Staphylococcus haemolyticus were equal (0.5 μg/ml). The eravacycline MIC90s for Enterococcus faecalis and Enterococcus faecium were 0.06 μg/ml and were within 1 doubling dilution regardless of the vancomycin susceptibility profile. Eravacycline exhibited MIC90 results of ≤0.06 μg/ml when tested against Streptococcus pneumoniae and beta-hemolytic and viridans group streptococcal isolates. In this surveillance study, eravacycline demonstrated potent in vitro activity against frequently isolated clinical isolates of Gram-positive bacteria (Enterococcus, Staphylococcus, and Streptococcus spp.), including isolates collected over a 5-year period (2013 to 2017), underscoring its potential benefit in the treatment of infections caused by common Gram-positive pathogens.

INTRODUCTION

Multidrug-resistant (MDR) Gram-positive organisms are major human pathogens, causing both health care-associated and community-acquired infections. Clinically important antimicrobial-resistant Gram-positive pathogens include methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE), and Streptococcus pneumoniae. In fact, all three have recently been highlighted among the Gram-positive pathogens classified as serious or high public health threats by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (1) and the World Health Organization (WHO) (2).

Eravacycline is a novel, fully synthetic fluorocycline antibiotic recently approved by U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAI), including those caused by MDR pathogens (3, 4; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01844856). Additionally, eravacycline has been demonstrated to have in vivo efficacy as a treatment in murine models of systemic, thigh, and lung infection and pyelonephritis (4, 6, 7).

Eravacycline is comprised of a tetracycline core with two novel modifications: a fluorine atom at the C-7 position and a pyrrolidinoacetamido group at the C-9 position, both of which are on the D ring (4, 8). These novel modifications confer enhanced in vitro activity compared to that of other tetracyclines against resistant Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria, and the pyrrolidinoacetamido group allows for increased ribosomal binding and steric hindrance to avoid ribosome protection-based tetracycline resistance.

Eravacycline inhibits bacterial protein synthesis (i.e., acyl-tRNA transfer) by binding to the 30S ribosomal subunit (9). Eravacycline demonstrates potent broad-spectrum activity against Gram-positive cocci and Gram-negative bacilli (except Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Burkholderia spp.), including anaerobes, as well as atypical bacterial pathogens and Neisseria gonorrhoeae (3, 10–15), and does not exhibit a loss of antibacterial activity against isolates expressing tetracycline ribosomal protection genes or most tetracycline efflux resistance genes (9, 10, 13).

The objective of the current study was to determine the in vitro activity of eravacycline relative to that of other antimicrobial agents using a representative global collection of clinical isolates of Gram-positive bacteria.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A total of 10,511 Gram-positive aerobic isolates collected between 2013 and 2017 were included in this study. The MIC distributions and the cumulative percentage of selected isolates of Gram-positive bacteria tested inhibited by eravacycline are shown in Table 1. The MIC90 of eravacycline for isolates of S. aureus was 0.12 μg/ml irrespective of whether the isolates were MRSA or methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA). The eravacycline MIC90 values for the coagulase-negative staphylococci Staphylococcus epidermidis and Staphylococcus haemolyticus, including the methicillin-resistant subsets, were ≤0.5 μg/ml. The eravacycline MIC90 for Enterococcus faecalis was 0.06 μg/ml, with a 1-doubling-dilution shift being seen for vancomycin-resistant E. faecalis. The eravacycline MIC90 for Enterococcus faecium was 0.06 μg/ml, regardless of its vancomycin susceptibility. Eravacycline exhibited MIC90 results of ≤0.06 μg/ml when tested against beta-hemolytic and viridans group streptococci as well as an MIC90 of 0.015 μg/ml for Streptococcus pneumoniae.

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

Cumulative percentage of clinical isolates of staphylococci, enterococci, and streptococci tested from 2013 to 2017 inhibited by eravacycline, by MIC

Tables 2, 3, and 4 provide details on the in vitro activities of eravacycline and the comparator agents against staphylococci, enterococci, and streptococci, respectively, including percent susceptibility according to the CLSI and EUCAST breakpoints. The highest rates of nonsusceptibility in MRSA were reported for azithromycin, clindamycin, and levofloxacin (75.9%, 38.3%, and 65.9%, respectively, by CLSI criteria), while resistance rates were <1% for linezolid, daptomycin, and vancomycin (Table 2). For compounds of the tetracycline class, tigecycline and minocycline, resistance rates were approximately 2 to 12% across FDA/CLSI and EUCAST breakpoints. Comparatively, due to overall lower breakpoints for eravacycline, the nonsusceptible rate was nearly 20% by the FDA criteria and 4.5% by the EUCAST criteria, but the MIC90 value of eravacycline was 2-fold lower than that of tigecycline. Similarly, for E. faecalis the nonsusceptibility rates to linezolid and daptomycin were <1% and 5.6%, respectively, while the rates were 2% and 53%, respectively, for E. faecium (Table 3). Vancomycin retained activity against E. faecalis, with a resistance rate of 4.9%, but it was generally ineffective against E. faecium, in which the rate of resistance exceeded 40%. Both species of enterococci were resistant to minocycline, with nonsusceptibility rates ranging from 49 to 72%. While eravacycline and tigecycline nonsusceptibility rates were about 1 to 5%, the MIC90 of tigecycline was 2 doubling dilutions higher than that of eravacycline. Notably, the rates of resistance for the comparators in this study were similar to those seen in other global surveillance studies (16, 17).

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

In vitro activity of eravacycline and comparator agents against staphylococci, cumulative 2013 to 2017 datad

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
TABLE 3

In vitro activity of eravacycline and comparator agents against enterococci, cumulative 2013 to 2017 datac

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
TABLE 4

In vitro activity of eravacycline and comparator agents against streptococci, cumulative 2013 to 2017 datag

When isolates were allocated to their respective geographic regions, eravacycline MIC90s were within 1 doubling dilution for all Gram-positive genera/species (see Table S3 in the supplemental material). Similarly, there were no significant differences (a >1-doubling-dilution increase or decrease in MIC90s) observed in the in vitro activity of eravacycline for any genera/species of Gram-positive bacteria stratified by study period (2013 to 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017) (Table S4) or stratified by specimen source (Table S5). A detailed trend analysis could not be conducted, given that there were changes in participating laboratories and the panel of antimicrobial agents tested over the time period studied (2013 to 2017). Overall, eravacycline activity was similar over time and across geographic regions and specimen sources.

Eravacycline consistently demonstrated 2- to 4-fold lower MIC90 values than tigecycline for populations of Gram-positive pathogens. Previous in vitro studies comparing eravacycline and tigecycline have reported similar 2- to 4-fold improvements in the MIC90 (4, 6, 7, 15). Susceptibility rates, due to a difference in breakpoints, were similar between these two antibiotics. As tigecycline EUCAST breakpoints have recently been lowered for Gram-negative organisms, perhaps a review of the breakpoints for Gram-positive organisms is also warranted for this agent.

This global surveillance investigation highlights the broad-spectrum potency of eravacycline against Gram-positive bacteria, including resistant isolates. As cIAIs are well-known to be polymicrobial, involving synergistic Gram-positive, Gram-negative, and anaerobic organism interactions, this study underscores the potential benefit of eravacycline for the empirical treatment of cIAIs. Furthermore, eravacycline may have a role in the treatment of other infections caused predominantly by Gram-positive pathogens, but the clinical utility in such disease states should be investigated.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Bacterial isolates.From 2013 to 2017, 10,511 clinical isolates of Enterococcus spp. (n = 2,807), Staphylococcus spp. (n = 4,331), and Streptococcus spp. (n = 3,373) were collected by laboratories in 37 countries on three continents (Asia/Pacific, Europe, North America). The identity of each isolate was confirmed using matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization–time of flight (MALDI-TOF) mass spectrometry (Bruker Biotyper; Bruker Daltonics, Bremen, Germany).

Table S1 in the supplemental material summarizes the numbers of isolates collected in each of the four study periods (2013 to 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017) by geographic region. Overall, approximately 54% of the isolates came from Europe, 35% of the isolates came from North America, and 10% came from the Asia-Pacific region. In total, there were 3,180, 2,082, 3,176, 956, and 1,117 isolates, respectively, from respiratory, intra-abdominal, urinary, skin, and other specimen sources (Table S2).

Isolates were limited to one per patient, determined by the participating laboratory algorithms to be clinically significant, and collected irrespective of their antimicrobial susceptibility profile and independent of patient gender or age. The study was not designed to directly compare the prevalence of antimicrobial-resistant pathogens across specific geographic locations but, rather, was designed to evaluate the in vitro activities of eravacycline and the comparator antimicrobial agents against a global collection of frequently encountered clinical isolates of Gram-positive bacteria collected from 2013 to 2017.

Antimicrobial susceptibility testing.The in vitro susceptibilities of the isolates were determined using the CLSI-defined broth microdilution method in 96-well broth microdilution panels (18, 19). The antimicrobial agents used in panel production were acquired as laboratory-grade powders from their respective manufacturers or from a commercial source. The list of antimicrobial agents tested in each of the four study periods varied slightly, in that some agents, in addition to those tested in the 2013 to 2014 period, were included in the 2015, 2016, and 2017 testing periods. Of note, ampicillin, clindamycin, meropenem, and oxacillin were tested only in 2015, 2016, and 2017. The eravacycline MICs for Gram-positive bacteria were read following the current CLSI standard for dilution method testing; MIC endpoints were read following panel incubation at 35°C in ambient air for 16 to 20 h (Enterococcus and Staphylococcus spp.) or 35°C in ambient air for 20 to 24 h (Streptococcus spp.) (19). Quality control testing for eravacycline and the other antimicrobial agents was performed on each day of testing, as specified by the CLSI, using the CLSI-defined control strains E. faecalis ATCC 29212, S. aureus ATCC 29213, and S. pneumoniae ATCC 49619 (19).

MICs were interpreted using 2019 CLSI MIC breakpoints (19) and 2019 EUCAST MIC breakpoints (20), with the following exceptions. FDA MIC interpretative breakpoints were used for tigecycline (21) and eravacycline in place of CLSI MIC breakpoints, which are not currently published for these agents. Additionally, tigecycline breakpoints for vancomycin-susceptible Enterococcus faecalis were applied to vancomycin-resistant isolates and to Enterococcus faecium; EUCAST eravacycline breakpoints for the Streptococcus anginosus group were applied to beta-hemolytic streptococci; EUCAST tigecycline breakpoints for beta-hemolytic streptococci were applied to the S. anginosus group; and EUCAST eravacycline breakpoints for S. aureus were applied to coagulase-negative Staphylococcus species.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank all laboratories participating in this eravacycline global surveillance study for their contributions, as well as Sophie Magnet for her coordination of the laboratory work.

Funding for this research was provided by Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Watertown, MA, USA, which also included compensation fees for services in relation to preparing the manuscript.

C.F. and M.O. are employees of Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals. J.N. is a former employee of Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals. I.M. and S.H. are employees of IHMA Europe Sàrl. S.H.L. works for IHMA, Inc. Both IHMA laboratories have received research funding from Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals, Inc. J.A.K. is a consultant to IHMA, Inc. The authors employed by IHMA and J.A.K. do not have personal financial interests in the sponsor of this paper (Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals, Inc.). M.B. has participated in advisory boards and/or received speaker honoraria from Achaogen, Angelini, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Basilea, Cidara, Gilead, Menarini, MSD, Nabriva, Paratek, Pfizer, The Medicines Company, Tetraphase, and Vifor. G.R.C. has received consulting fees from Cempra Pharmaceuticals, PRA International, Furiex Pharmaceuticals, Inimex Pharmaceuticals, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Cerexa/Forest Laboratories, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, ContraFect, Theravance, and Astellas; has received research grants from Theravance, Innocoll, and The Medicines Company; and has served on the advisory boards of Pfizer, Polymedix, Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals, Seachaid Pharmaceuticals, BioCryst Pharmaceuticals, Durata, Achaogen, ContraFect, and Nabriva.

FOOTNOTES

    • Received 22 August 2019.
    • Returned for modification 20 October 2019.
    • Accepted 9 December 2019.
    • Accepted manuscript posted online 16 December 2019.
  • Supplemental material is available online only.

  • Copyright © 2020 Morrissey et al.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2013. Antibiotic resistance threats in the United States, 2013. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA. https://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/threat-report-2013/pdf/ar-threats-2013-508.pdf.
  2. 2.↵
    1. Tacconelli E, WHO Pathogens Priority List Working Group,
    2. Carrara E,
    3. Savoldi A,
    4. Harbarth S,
    5. Mendelson M,
    6. Monnet DL,
    7. Pulcini C,
    8. Kahlmeter G,
    9. Kluytmans J,
    10. Carmeli Y,
    11. Ouellette M,
    12. Outterson K,
    13. Patel J,
    14. Cavaleri M,
    15. Cox EM,
    16. Houchens CR,
    17. Grayson ML,
    18. Hansen P,
    19. Singh N,
    20. Theuretzbacher U,
    21. Magrini N
    . 2018. Discovery, research, and development of new antibiotics: the WHO priority list of antibiotic-resistant bacteria and tuberculosis. Lancet Infect Dis 18:318–327. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(17)30753-3.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  3. 3.↵
    1. Falagas ME,
    2. Mavroudis AD,
    3. Vardakas KZ
    . 2016. The antibiotic pipeline for multi-drug resistant Gram-negative bacteria: what can we expect? Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther 14:747–763. doi:10.1080/14787210.2016.1204911.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  4. 4.↵
    1. Zhanel GG,
    2. Cheung D,
    3. Adam H,
    4. Zelenitsky S,
    5. Golden A,
    6. Schweizer F,
    7. Gorityala B,
    8. Lagacé-Wiens PR,
    9. Walkty A,
    10. Gin AS,
    11. Hoban DJ,
    12. Karlowsky JA
    . 2016. Review of eravacycline, a novel fluorocycline antibacterial agent. Drugs 76:567–588. doi:10.1007/s40265-016-0545-8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.
    Reference deleted.
  6. 6.↵
    1. Monogue ML,
    2. Thabit AK,
    3. Hamada Y,
    4. Nicolau DP
    . 2016. Antibacterial efficacy of eravacycline in vivo against Gram-positive and Gram-negative organisms. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 60:5001–5005. doi:10.1128/AAC.00366-16.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    1. Grossman TH,
    2. Murphy TM,
    3. Slee AM,
    4. Lofland D,
    5. Sutcliffe JA
    . 2015. Eravacycline (TP-434) is efficacious in animal models of infection. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 59:2567–2571. doi:10.1128/AAC.04354-14.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Xiao X-Y,
    2. Hunt DK,
    3. Zhou J,
    4. Clark RB,
    5. Dunwoody N,
    6. Fyfe C,
    7. Grossman TH,
    8. O'Brien WJ,
    9. Plamondon L,
    10. Rönn M,
    11. Sun C,
    12. Zhang W-Y,
    13. Sutcliffe JA
    . 2012. Fluorocyclines. 1. 7-Fluoro-9-pyrrolidinoacetamido-6-demethyl-6-deoxytetracycline: a potent broad spectrum antibacterial agent. J Med Chem 55:597–605. doi:10.1021/jm201465w.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Grossman TH,
    2. Starosta AL,
    3. Fyfe C,
    4. O'Brien W,
    5. Rothstein DM,
    6. Mikolajka A,
    7. Wilson DN,
    8. Sutcliffe JA
    . 2012. Target and resistance-based mechanistic studies with TP-434, a novel fluorocycline antibiotic. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 56:2559–2564. doi:10.1128/AAC.06187-11.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. 10.↵
    1. Sutcliffe JA,
    2. O’Brien W,
    3. Fyfe C,
    4. Grossman TH
    . 2013. Antibacterial activity of eravacycline (TP-434) a novel fluorocycline against hospital and community pathogens. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 59:5548–5558. doi:10.1128/AAC.01288-13.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  11. 11.↵
    1. Abdallah M,
    2. Olafisoye O,
    3. Cortes C,
    4. Urban C,
    5. Landman D,
    6. Quale J
    . 2015. Activity of eravacycline against Enterobacteriaceae and Acinetobacter baumannii, including multidrug-resistant isolates from New York City. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 59:1802–1805. doi:10.1128/AAC.04809-14.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. Johnson JR,
    2. Porter SB,
    3. Johnston BD,
    4. Thuras P
    . 2015. Activity of eravacycline against Escherichia coli clinical isolates collected from U.S. veterans in 2011 in relation to coresistance phenotype and sequence type 131 genotype. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 60:1888–1891. doi:10.1128/AAC.02403-15.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  13. 13.↵
    1. Bassetti M,
    2. Righi E
    . 2014. Eravacycline for the treatment of intra-abdominal infections. Expert Opin Invest Drugs 23:1575–1584. doi:10.1517/13543784.2014.965253.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Lagacé-Wiens PRS,
    2. Adam HJ,
    3. Laing NM,
    4. Baxter MR,
    5. Martin I,
    6. Mulvey MR,
    7. Karlowsky JA,
    8. Hoban DJ,
    9. Zhanel GG
    . 2017. Antimicrobial susceptibility of clinical isolates of Neisseria gonorrhoeae to alternative antimicrobials with therapeutic potential. J Antimicrob Chemother 72:2273–2277. doi:10.1093/jac/dkx147.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  15. 15.↵
    1. Zhanel GG,
    2. Baxter MR,
    3. Adam HJ,
    4. Sutcliffe J,
    5. Karlowsky JA
    . 2018. In vitro activity of eravacycline against 2,213 Gram-negative and 2,424 Gram-positive bacterial pathogens isolated in Canadian hospital laboratories: CANWARD surveillance study 2014–2015. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 91:55–62. doi:10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2017.12.013.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  16. 16.↵
    1. Jones RN,
    2. Sader HS,
    3. Flamm RK
    . 2013. Update of dalbavancin spectrum and potency in the USA: report from the SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program (2011). Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 75:304–307. doi:10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2012.11.024.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Jones RN,
    2. Wilson ML,
    3. Weinstein MP,
    4. Stilwell MG,
    5. Mendes RE
    . 2013. Contemporary potencies of minocycline and tetracycline HCL tested against Gram-positive pathogens: SENTRY Program results using CLSI and EUCAST breakpoint criteria. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 75:402–405. doi:10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2013.01.022.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. 2018. Methods for dilution antimicrobial susceptibility tests for bacteria that grow aerobically, 11th ed. Approved standard M07-A11. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, Wayne, PA.
  19. 19.↵
    Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. 2019. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing, 29th ed. M100. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, Wayne, PA.
  20. 20.↵
    European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. 2019. Breakpoint tables for interpretation of MICs and zone diameters, version 9.0. http://www.eucast.org.
  21. 21.↵
    Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Inc. 2016. Tygacil (tigecycline)—tigecycline injection, powder, lyophilized, for solution prescribing information. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Inc, Philadelphia, PA.
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
In Vitro Activity of Eravacycline against Gram-Positive Bacteria Isolated in Clinical Laboratories Worldwide from 2013 to 2017
Ian Morrissey, Stephen Hawser, Sibylle H. Lob, James A. Karlowsky, Matteo Bassetti, G. Ralph Corey, Melanie Olesky, Joseph Newman, Corey Fyfe
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Feb 2020, 64 (3) e01715-19; DOI: 10.1128/AAC.01715-19

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 Eravacycline against Gram-Positive Bacteria Isolated in Clinical Laboratories Worldwide from 2013 to 2017
(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 Eravacycline against Gram-Positive Bacteria Isolated in Clinical Laboratories Worldwide from 2013 to 2017
Ian Morrissey, Stephen Hawser, Sibylle H. Lob, James A. Karlowsky, Matteo Bassetti, G. Ralph Corey, Melanie Olesky, Joseph Newman, Corey Fyfe
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Feb 2020, 64 (3) e01715-19; DOI: 10.1128/AAC.01715-19
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • INTRODUCTION
    • RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

KEYWORDS

eravacycline
Gram positive
MRSA
VRE
streptococci
Streptococcus

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