4.7 Article

Combination of cephalosporins with vancomycin or teicoplanin enhances antibacterial effect of glycopeptides against heterogeneous vancomycin-intermediate Staphylococcus aureus (hVISA) and VISA

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/srep41758

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan [MOST 105-2314-B-384-007-MY3]
  2. Chi-Mei Medical Center Research Foundation [CMFHT10501, CMNCKU10509]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Eight heterogeneous vancomycin-intermediate S. aureus (h-VISA) and seven VISA clinical isolates confirmed by the population analysis profile/area under the curve ratio (PAP/AUC) were collected. We further performed the PAP/AUC, time-killing methods and MIC tests using vancomycin/teicoplanin alone or combination with susceptible breakpoint concentrations of cefazolin, cefmetazole, cefotaxime, and cefepime for these isolates. The PAP/AUC MIC curve shifted left after addition of cephalosporins with vancomycin or teicoplanin for both h-VISA and VISA isolates. With the combination of different cephalosporins with vancomycin or teicoplanin, the AUC/Mu3 AUC ratio decreased to <0.9 for the standard Mu3 isolate which are compatible with the definition of vancomycin susceptible S. aureus. These decreases ranged between 1.81-2.02 and 2.37-2.85-fold for h-VISA treated with cephalosporins and vancomycin or teicoplanin, and 2.05-4.59, and 2.93-4,89-fold for VISA treated with cephalosporins with vancomycin or teicoplanin. As measured by time-killing assays, the combinations of different cephalosporins with vancomycin concentrations at 1/2 and 1/4 MIC, exhibited a bactericidal and bacteriostatic effect in VISA. The mean fold of MIC decline for vancomycin base combinations ranged from 1.81-3.83 and 2.71-9.33 for h-VISA and VISA, respectively. Overall, this study demonstrated the enhanced antibacterial activity of vancomycin/teicoplanin after adding cephalosporins against clinical h-VISA/VISA isolates.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据