Literature DB >> 19884364

In vivo activity of ceftobiprole in murine skin infections due to Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

Jeffrey Fernandez1, Jamese J Hilliard, Darren Abbanat, Wenyan Zhang, John L Melton, Colleen M Santoro, Robert K Flamm, Karen Bush.   

Abstract

Ceftobiprole, a broad-spectrum cephalosporin with activity against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) (P. Hebeisen et al., Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 45:825-836, 2001), was evaluated in a subcutaneous skin infection model with Staphylococcus aureus Smith OC 4172 (methicillin-susceptible S. aureus [MSSA]), S. aureus OC 8525 (MRSA), Pseudomonas aeruginosa OC 4351 (having an inducible AmpC beta-lactamase), and P. aeruginosa OC 4354 (overproducing AmpC beta-lactamase). In the MSSA and MRSA infection models, ceftobiprole, administered as the prodrug ceftobiprole medocaril, was more effective in reducing CFU/g skin (P < 0.001) than were cefazolin, vancomycin, or linezolid based on the dose-response profiles. Skin lesion volumes in MSSA-infected animals treated with ceftobiprole were 19 to 29% lower than those for cefazolin-, vancomycin-, or linezolid-treated animals (P < 0.001). In MRSA infections, lesion size in ceftobiprole-treated mice was 34% less than that with cefazolin or linezolid treatment (P < 0.001). Against P. aeruginosa, ceftobiprole at similar doses was as effective as meropenem-cilastatin in reductions of CFU/g skin, despite 8- and 32-fold-lower MICs for meropenem; both treatments were more effective than was cefepime (P < 0.001) against the inducible and overproducing AmpC beta-lactamase strains of P. aeruginosa. Ceftobiprole was similar to meropenem-cilastatin and 47 to 54% more effective than cefepime (P < 0.01) in reducing the size of the lesion caused by either strain of P. aeruginosa in this study. These studies indicate that ceftobiprole is effective in reducing both bacterial load and lesion volume associated with infections due to MSSA, MRSA, and P. aeruginosa in this murine model of skin and soft tissue infection.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19884364      PMCID: PMC2798551          DOI: 10.1128/AAC.00642-09

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother        ISSN: 0066-4804            Impact factor:   5.191


  46 in total

1.  Linezolid and reversible myelosuppression.

Authors:  S L Green; J C Maddox; E D Huttenbach
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2001-03-14       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  Of Pseudomonas, porins, pumps and carbapenems.

Authors:  D M Livermore
Journal:  J Antimicrob Chemother       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 5.790

3.  In vivo efficacy of a novel oxazolidinone compound in two mouse models of infection.

Authors:  Charles J Gill; George K Abruzzo; Amy M Flattery; Andrew S Misura; Ken Bartizal; Emily J Hickey
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2007-07-02       Impact factor: 5.191

4.  Vancomycin therapeutic guidelines: a summary of consensus recommendations from the infectious diseases Society of America, the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, and the Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists.

Authors:  Michael J Rybak; Ben M Lomaestro; John C Rotschafer; Robert C Moellering; Willam A Craig; Marianne Billeter; Joseph R Dalovisio; Donald P Levine
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2009-08-01       Impact factor: 9.079

5.  In vitro and in vivo properties of Ro 63-9141, a novel broad-spectrum cephalosporin with activity against methicillin-resistant staphylococci.

Authors:  P Hebeisen; I Heinze-Krauss; P Angehrn; P Hohl; M G Page; R L Then
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 5.191

6.  Emergence of vancomycin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus. Glycopeptide-Intermediate Staphylococcus aureus Working Group.

Authors:  T L Smith; M L Pearson; K R Wilcox; C Cruz; M V Lancaster; B Robinson-Dunn; F C Tenover; M J Zervos; J D Band; E White; W R Jarvis
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1999-02-18       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  In vivo pharmacodynamics of ceftobiprole against multiple bacterial pathogens in murine thigh and lung infection models.

Authors:  W A Craig; D R Andes
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2008-08-01       Impact factor: 5.191

8.  In vivo activity of the pyrrolopyrazolyl-substituted oxazolidinone RWJ-416457.

Authors:  Jamese J Hilliard; Jeffrey Fernandez; John Melton; Mark J Macielag; Raul Goldschmidt; Karen Bush; Darren Abbanat
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2009-03-09       Impact factor: 5.191

9.  In vitro activity of ceftobiprole against pathogens from two phase 3 clinical trials of complicated skin and skin structure infections.

Authors:  Karen M Amsler; Todd A Davies; Wenchi Shang; Michael R Jacobs; Karen Bush
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2008-06-30       Impact factor: 5.191

10.  Activities of clindamycin, daptomycin, doxycycline, linezolid, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, and vancomycin against community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus with inducible clindamycin resistance in murine thigh infection and in vitro pharmacodynamic models.

Authors:  Kerry L LaPlante; Steven N Leonard; David R Andes; William A Craig; Michael J Rybak
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2008-04-14       Impact factor: 5.191

View more
  8 in total

1.  Nitric oxide nanoparticles: pre-clinical utility as a therapeutic for intramuscular abscesses.

Authors:  David Schairer; Luis R Martinez; Karin Blecher; Jason Chouake; Parimala Nacharaju; Philip Gialanella; Joel M Friedman; Joshua D Nosanchuk; Adam Friedman
Journal:  Virulence       Date:  2012-01-01       Impact factor: 5.882

Review 2.  Diabetic foot infections: microbiological aspects, current and future antibiotic therapy focusing on methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.

Authors:  Andreas Ambrosch; Simone Haefner; Edward Jude; Ralf Lobmann
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2011-08-23       Impact factor: 3.315

3.  Efficacy of a new fluoroquinolone, JNJ-Q2, in murine models of Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus pneumoniae skin, respiratory, and systemic infections.

Authors:  Jeffrey Fernandez; Jamese J Hilliard; Brian J Morrow; John L Melton; Robert K Flamm; Alfred M Barron; A Simon Lynch
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2011-09-12       Impact factor: 5.191

4.  Efficacy of ceftobiprole Medocaril against Enterococcus faecalis in a murine urinary tract infection model.

Authors:  Kavindra V Singh; Barbara E Murray
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2012-03-26       Impact factor: 5.191

5.  Combination prophylactic therapy with rifampin increases efficacy against an experimental Staphylococcus epidermidis subcutaneous implant-related infection.

Authors:  Alexandra I Stavrakis; Jared A Niska; Jonathan H Shahbazian; Amanda H Loftin; Romela Irene Ramos; Fabrizio Billi; Kevin P Francis; Michael Otto; Nicholas M Bernthal; Daniel Z Uslan; Lloyd S Miller
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2014-02-10       Impact factor: 5.191

6.  A phase 3 randomized double-blind comparison of ceftobiprole medocaril versus ceftazidime plus linezolid for the treatment of hospital-acquired pneumonia.

Authors:  Samir S Awad; Alejandro H Rodriguez; Yin-Ching Chuang; Zsuszanna Marjanek; Alex J Pareigis; Gilmar Reis; Thomas W L Scheeren; Alejandro S Sánchez; Xin Zhou; Mikaël Saulay; Marc Engelhardt
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2014-04-09       Impact factor: 9.079

7.  Resistance and the management of complicated skin and skin structure infections: the role of ceftobiprole.

Authors:  April Barbour; Hartmut Derendorf
Journal:  Ther Clin Risk Manag       Date:  2010-10-05       Impact factor: 2.423

Review 8.  Possible clinical indications of ceftobiprole.

Authors:  J Barberán
Journal:  Rev Esp Quimioter       Date:  2019-09       Impact factor: 1.553

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.