Literature DB >> 24252780

Evaluation of the in vitro activities of ceftobiprole and comparators in staphylococcal colony or microtitre plate biofilm assays.

Darren Abbanat1, Wenchi Shang2, Karen Amsler2, Colleen Santoro2, Ellen Baum2, Steven Crespo-Carbone2, A Simon Lynch2.   

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the in vitro efficacy of ceftobiprole and comparator antibiotics, either alone or in combination, in staphylococcal MBEC™ (minimum biofilm eradication concentration) and colony biofilm assays at dilutions of the maximum free-drug plasma concentration attained during clinical use (fCmax). Staphylococci tested included meticillin-susceptible and meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (n=6) and Staphylococcus epidermidis (n=2). Relative to no-drug controls, after 7 days of exposure ceftobiprole concentrations from 1/4 fCmax to fCmax generally decreased CFUs in MBEC or colony biofilms of S. aureus isolates by ca. 1.5log10 to ≥2.5log10. Gentamicin reduced colony biofilm CFUs by ≥1.4log10 at these concentrations with gentamicin-susceptible isolates. Following 7 days of exposure, vancomycin and rifampicin were ineffective as single agents or in combination in the colony model, but yielded CFU decreases from 0 to 5log10 in the MBEC model. Treatment of biofilms with rifampicin for 7 days yielded rifampicin-resistant mutants, and the selection of rifampicin resistance was inhibited by co-treatment with ceftobiprole. Thus, ceftobiprole alone or in combination demonstrated promising activity against biofilms of meticillin-susceptible and -resistant staphylococci at clinically relevant concentrations. In contrast, vancomycin and rifampicin, two agents used clinically for the treatment of biofilm infections, tested separately or together gave inconsistent results and generally had little impact on cell viability.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier B.V. and the International Society of Chemotherapy. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Antibiotic resistance; Biofilm; Ceftobiprole; Staphylococcus

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24252780     DOI: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2013.09.013

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Antimicrob Agents        ISSN: 0924-8579            Impact factor:   5.283


  6 in total

1.  Syringa oblata Lindl. Aqueous Extract Is a Potential Biofilm Inhibitor in S. suis.

Authors:  Jingwen Bai; Yanbei Yang; Shuai Wang; Lingfei Gao; Jianqing Chen; Yongzhi Ren; Wenya Ding; Ishfaq Muhammad; Yanhua Li
Journal:  Front Pharmacol       Date:  2017-01-30       Impact factor: 5.810

2.  Prevention of Staphylococcus aureus biofilm formation by antibiotics in 96-Microtiter Well Plates and Drip Flow Reactors: critical factors influencing outcomes.

Authors:  Suvi Manner; Darla M Goeres; Malena Skogman; Pia Vuorela; Adyary Fallarero
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-03-02       Impact factor: 4.379

3.  Comparative activity of ceftobiprole against coagulase-negative staphylococci from the BSAC Bacteraemia Surveillance Programme, 2013-2015.

Authors:  Anne Santerre Henriksen; Jennifer Smart; Kamal Hamed
Journal:  Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis       Date:  2018-06-06       Impact factor: 3.267

Review 4.  Ceftobiprole: a clinical view.

Authors:  P M Martínez Pérez-Crespo; L E López Cortés
Journal:  Rev Esp Quimioter       Date:  2021-09-30       Impact factor: 1.553

5.  Quantitative flow chamber system for evaluating in vitro biofilms and the kinetics of S. aureus biofilm formation in human plasma media.

Authors:  Werasak Sutipornpalangkul; Kohei Nishitani; Edward M Schwarz
Journal:  BMC Microbiol       Date:  2021-11-11       Impact factor: 3.605

6.  Orthopaedic Implant-Associated Staphylococcal Infections: A Critical Reappraisal of Unmet Clinical Needs Associated with the Implementation of the Best Antibiotic Choice.

Authors:  Milo Gatti; Simona Barnini; Fabio Guarracino; Eva Maria Parisio; Michele Spinicci; Bruno Viaggi; Sara D'Arienzo; Silvia Forni; Angelo Galano; Fabrizio Gemmi
Journal:  Antibiotics (Basel)       Date:  2022-03-17
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.