Literature DB >> 31843997

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

Ian Morrissey1, Stephen Hawser2, Sibylle H Lob3, James A Karlowsky4, Matteo Bassetti5, G Ralph Corey6, Melanie Olesky7, Joseph Newman7, Corey Fyfe7.   

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.
Copyright © 2020 Morrissey et al.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Gram positive; MRSA; Streptococcus; VRE; eravacycline; streptococci

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2020        PMID: 31843997      PMCID: PMC7038300          DOI: 10.1128/AAC.01715-19

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


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.
TABLE 1

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

OrganismgNo. of isolatesCumulative % of isolates inhibited by the following eravacycline MIC (μg/ml)a:
≤0.0010.0020.0040.0080.0150.030.060.120.250.512
S. aureusb2,5880.43.833.484.594.897.699.4100
    S. aureus, MRb1,3040.24.132.880.891.695.598.8100
    S. aureus, MSb1,2840.53.534.088.398.099.8100
S. epidermidisb1,0121.411.528.245.763.484.697.199.8100
    S. epidermidis, MRb,c4801.910.830.843.866.790.497.999.8100
    S. epidermidis, MSb,c2552.024.347.859.675.796.999.699.6100
S. haemolyticusb7311.213.534.645.664.889.996.098.8100
    S. haemolyticus, MRb,c4400.511.430.936.860.290.095.298.0100
    S. haemolyticus, MSb,c1345.235.876.985.894.897.899.3100
E. faecalis1,5860.22.628.994.599.499.7100
    E. faecalis, VRd5923.789.898.3100
    E. faecalis, VS1,5050.22.729.494.899.599.7100
E. faecium1,2210.64.360.295.097.799.199.8100
    E. faecium, VRd5100.63.754.993.196.198.099.6100
    E. faecium, VS7020.64.663.896.398.999.9100
S. pneumoniaee5960.82.014.873.097.8100
S. agalactiae1,2390.713.470.598.099.8100
S. pyogenes1,1920.23.647.896.0100
S. anginosus groupf3465.25.58.719.946.586.499.1100

The MIC90 is shaded gray.

For staphylococci, the lowest dilution of eravacycline tested was 0.008 μg/ml.

Defined using oxacillin MICs, which were available only for 2015 to 2017.

Defined using CLSI breakpoint criteria.

Collected only in 2013 to 2014 and 2017.

The S. anginosus group (n = 346) includes S. anginosus (n = 302), S. constellatus (n = 36), S. intermedius (n = 7), and S. intermedius/S. milleri (n = 1).

MR, methicillin resistant; MS, methicillin susceptible; VR, vancomycin resistant; VS, vancomycin susceptible.

Cumulative percentage of clinical isolates of staphylococci, enterococci, and streptococci tested from 2013 to 2017 inhibited by eravacycline, by MIC The MIC90 is shaded gray. For staphylococci, the lowest dilution of eravacycline tested was 0.008 μg/ml. Defined using oxacillin MICs, which were available only for 2015 to 2017. Defined using CLSI breakpoint criteria. Collected only in 2013 to 2014 and 2017. The S. anginosus group (n = 346) includes S. anginosus (n = 302), S. constellatus (n = 36), S. intermedius (n = 7), and S. intermedius/S. milleri (n = 1). MR, methicillin resistant; MS, methicillin susceptible; VR, vancomycin resistant; VS, vancomycin susceptible. 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).
TABLE 2

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

OrganismDrugNo. of isolatesMIC (μg/ml)
% susceptible
50%90%RangeCLSIEUCAST
S. aureusEravacycline2,5880.060.12≤0.008 to 184.5a97.6
Amoxicillin-clavulanate2,588>1>1≤0.12 to >1NANA
Azithromycin2,588>4>4≤0.25 to >449.347.8
Ceftaroline1,0760.51≤0.06 to >494.194.1
Ceftriaxone98016>641 to >64NANA
Clindamycin1,6080.12>2≤0.03 to >278.378.2
Daptomycin2,5880.51≤0.06 to 499.899.8
Gentamicin5320.250.5≤0.06 to >892.592.1
Levofloxacin2,5880.25>4≤0.03 to >462.162.1
Linezolid2,58822≤0.5 to 2100100
Minocycline2,5870.120.25≤0.06 to >895.293.2
Oxacillin1,608>2>2≤0.06 to >249.649.6
Penicillin2,588>2>2≤0.12 to >213.413.4
Tetracycline2,5880.25>16≤0.06 to >1687.686.1
Tigecycline2,5880.120.250.03 to 298.6a98.6
Vancomycin1,60811≤0.25 to 2100100
    S. aureus, MREravacycline1,3040.060.12≤0.008 to 180.8a95.5
Amoxicillin-clavulanate1,304>1>10.5 to >1NANA
Azithromycin1,304>4>4≤0.25 to >424.123.1
Ceftaroline548120.12 to >488.388.3
Ceftriaxone493>64>644 to >64NANA
Clindamycin8110.12>2≤0.03 to >261.761.7
Daptomycin1,3040.51≤0.06 to 499.699.6
Gentamicin2630.25>80.12 to >885.685.2
Levofloxacin1,304>4>40.06 to >434.134.1
Linezolid1,30422≤0.5 to 2100100
Minocycline1,3030.124≤0.06 to >891.888.2
Oxacillin811>2>21 to >20.10.1
Penicillin1,304>2>2≤0.12 to >20.20.2
Tetracycline1,3040.25>16≤0.06 to >1682.079.8
Tigecycline1,3040.120.250.03 to 297.5a97.5
Vancomycin81111≤0.25 to 2100100
    S. aureus, MSEravacycline1,2840.060.12≤0.008 to 0.588.3a99.8
Amoxicillin-clavulanate1,2841>1≤0.12 to >1NANA
Azithromycin12841>4≤0.25 to >474.973.0
Ceftaroline5280.250.25≤0.06 to 0.5100100
Ceftriaxone487481 to >64NANA
Clindamycin7970.060.12≤0.03 to >295.295.0
Daptomycin1,2840.50.50.12 to 299.999.9
Gentamicin2690.250.5≤0.06 to >899.398.9
Levofloxacin1,2840.251≤0.03 to >490.590.5
Linezolid1,28422≤0.5 to 2100100
Minocycline1,2840.120.12≤0.06 to >898.798.3
Oxacillin7970.250.5≤0.06 to >299.999.9
Penicillin1,2842>2≤0.12 to >226.826.8
Tetracycline1,2840.250.5≤0.06 to >1693.492.5
Tigecycline1,2840.120.250.03 to 199.7a99.7
Vancomycin79711≤0.25 to 2100100
S. epidermidisEravacycline1,0120.120.5≤0.008 to 245.7a84.6b
Amoxicillin-clavulanate1,012>1>1≤0.12 to >1NANA
Azithromycin1,012>4>4≤0.25 to >437.236.9
Ceftaroline5290.250.5≤0.06 to >4NANA
Ceftriaxone27716>64≤0.5 to >64NANA
Clindamycin7350.06>2≤0.03 to >272.068.6
Daptomycin1,0120.51≤0.06 to 499.599.5
Gentamicin2060.12>8≤0.06 to >862.655.8
Levofloxacin1,0122>40.06 to >445.645.6
Linezolid1,01212≤0.5 to >898.598.5
Minocycline1,0120.120.5≤0.06 to >899.698.7
Oxacillin7352>2≤0.06 to >234.734.7
Penicillin1,012>2>2≤0.12 to >211.1NA
Tetracycline1,0121>16≤0.06 to >1685.766.5
Tigecycline1,0120.120.5≤0.015 to 197.5a97.5
Vancomycin735120.5 to 2100100
    S. epidermidis, MRcEravacycline4800.120.25≤0.008 to 243.8a90.4b
Amoxicillin-clavulanate480>1>1≤0.12 to >1NANA
Azithromycin480>4>4≤0.25 to >430.630.4
Ceftaroline3260.51≤0.06 to >4NANA
Clindamycin4800.12>2≤0.03 to >261.757.7
Daptomycin4800.50.5≤0.06 to 1100100
Gentamicin1544>8≤0.06 to >852.044.2
Levofloxacin4804>40.06 to >426.326.3
Linezolid480≤0.51≤0.5 to >497.797.7
Minocycline4800.120.5≤0.06 to >899.498.8
Oxacillin480>2>20.5 to >20.00.0
Penicillin480>2>2≤0.12 to >21.3NA
Tetracycline4801>16≤0.06 to >1684.870.2
Tigecycline4800.120.25≤0.015 to 199.0a99.0
Vancomycin480120.5 to 2100100
    S. epidermidis, MScEravacycline2550.060.25≤0.008 to 259.6a96.9b
Amoxicillin-clavulanate2550.250.5≤0.12 to >1NANA
Azithromycin2550.5>4≤0.25 to >453.352.9
Ceftaroline203≤0.060.12≤0.06 to 0.5NANA
Clindamycin2550.060.5≤0.03 to >291.489.0
Daptomycin2550.50.5≤0.06 to 1100100
Gentamicin52≤0.060.25≤0.06 to >894.290.4
Levofloxacin2550.25>40.06 to >481.681.6
Linezolid255≤0.51≤0.5 to >499.699.6
Minocycline2550.120.25≤0.06 to 410099.6
Oxacillin2550.120.12≤0.06 to 0.25100100
Penicillin2550.52≤0.12 to >229.4NA
Tetracycline2550.54≤0.06 to >1690.680.8
Tigecycline2550.120.250.03 to 199.6a99.6
Vancomycin255120.5 to 2100100
S. haemolyticusEravacycline7310.120.5≤0.008 to 245.6a89.9b
Amoxicillin-clavulanate731>1>1≤0.12 to >1NANA
Azithromycin731>4>4≤0.25 to >420.420.1
Ceftaroline42612≤0.06 to >4NANA
Ceftriaxone157>64>641 to >64NANA
Clindamycin5740.06>2≤0.03 to >280.079.6
Daptomycin7310.50.50.12 to 299.999.9
Gentamicin1488>8≤0.06 to >839.929.1
Levofloxacin731>4>40.06 to >428.928.9
Linezolid73212≤0.5 to >899.999.9
Minocycline7310.120.25≤0.06 to 899.798.1
Oxacillin574>2>2≤0.06 to >223.323.3
Penicillin731>2>2≤0.12 to >217.2NA
Tetracycline7311>16≤0.06 to >1681.069.8
Tigecycline7310.250.50.03 to 295.9a95.9
Vancomycin57412≤0.25 to 4100100
    S. haemolyticus, MRcEravacycline4400.120.25≤0.008 to 236.8a90.0b
Amoxicillin-clavulanate440>1>1≤0.12 to >1NANA
Azithromycin440>4>4≤0.25 to >49.89.8
Ceftaroline317220.12 to >4NANA
Clindamycin4400.06>2≤0.03 to >275.074.6
Daptomycin4400.50.50.12 to 1100100
Gentamicin123>8>8≤0.06 to >830.117.9
Levofloxacin440>4>40.06 to >413.013.0
Linezolid44111≤0.5 to 2100100
Minocycline4400.250.25≤0.06 to 899.897.5
Oxacillin440>2>20.5 to >20.00.0
Penicillin440>2>2≤0.12 to >21.6NA
Tetracycline4401>160.12 to >1682.371.8
Tigecycline4400.250.50.06 to 295.5a95.5
Vancomycin44012≤0.25 to 4100100
    S. haemolyticus, MScEravacycline1340.030.12≤0.008 to 185.8a97.8b
Amoxicillin-clavulanate134≤0.120.5≤0.12 to >1NANA
Azithromycin1340.5>4≤0.25 to >454.553.0
Ceftaroline1090.250.25≤0.06 to 2NANA
Clindamycin1340.060.25≤0.03 to >296.396.3
Daptomycin1340.250.50.12 to 0.5100100
Gentamicin25≤0.068≤0.06 to >888.084.0
Levofloxacin1340.1240.06 to >485.185.1
Linezolid134≤0.51≤0.5 to 2100100
Minocycline134≤0.060.25≤0.06 to 0.5100100
Oxacillin1340.120.25≤0.06 to 0.25100100
Penicillin134≤0.121≤0.12 to >274.6NA
Tetracycline1340.25>16≤0.06 to >1679.178.4
Tigecycline1340.120.250.06 to 0.5100a100
Vancomycin1340.51≤0.25 to 2100100

U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) MIC interpretative breakpoints were used in place of CLSI MIC breakpoints for eravacycline (≤0.06 μg/ml) and tigecycline (≤0.5 μg/ml) (21), as none currently exist. FDA eravacycline and tigecycline breakpoints for S. aureus were applied to the tested coagulase-negative Staphylococcus species.

EUCAST eravacycline breakpoints for S. aureus (≤0.25 μg/ml) were applied to the coagulase-negative Staphylococcus species tested.

Defined using oxacillin MICs, which were available only for 2015 to 2017.

MR, methicillin resistant; MS, methicillin susceptible; NA, MIC breakpoint not available.

TABLE 3

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

OrganismDrugNo. of isolatesMIC (μg/ml)
% susceptible
50%90%RangeCLSIEUCAST
E. faecalisEravacycline1,5860.060.060.008 to 0.594.5a99.4
Amoxicillin-clavulanate1,58611≤0.12 to >1NA99.9b
Ampicillin1,08512≤0.25 to >899.399.3
Azithromycin501>8>8≤0.12 to >8NANA
Ceftriaxone501>64>64≤0.5 to >64NANA
Daptomycin1,58612≤0.06 to 894.4NA
Levofloxacin1,5861>8≤0.03 to >869.169.5
Linezolid1,58622≤0.5 to >499.499.9
Minocycline1,586>8>8≤0.03 to >827.8NA
Penicillin1,58624≤0.12 to >897.6NA
Tetracycline1,586>32>32≤0.06 to >3222.3NA
Tigecycline1,5860.120.25≤0.015 to 894.8a94.8
Vancomycin1,582120.12 to >3295.195.1
    E. faecalis, VREravacycline590.060.120.03 to 0.2589.8a98.3
Amoxicillin-clavulanate591>10.5 to >1NA98.3b
Ampicillin34121 to >897.197.1
Azithromycin25>8>82 to >8NANA
Ceftriaxone25>64>644 to >64NANA
Daptomycin59120.5 to 496.6NA
Levofloxacin59>8>80.5 to >85.15.1
Linezolid5912≤0.5 to 2100100
Minocycline59>8>80.06 to >815.3NA
Penicillin59481 to >896.6NA
Tetracycline59>32>320.25 to >328.5NA
Tigecycline590.120.250.06 to 194.9a94.9
Vancomycin59>16>32>16 to >320.00.0
    E. faecalis, VSEravacycline1,5050.060.060.008 to 0.594.8a99.5
Amoxicillin-clavulanate1,50511≤0.12 to >1NA100b
Ampicillin1,04612≤0.25 to >899.399.3
Azithromycin459>8>8≤0.12 to >8NANA
Ceftriaxone459>64>64≤0.5 to >64NANA
Daptomycin1,50512≤0.06 to 894.3NA
Levofloxacin1,5051>8≤0.03 to >871.872.2
Linezolid1,50522≤0.5 to >499.599.9
Minocycline1,505>8>8≤0.03 to >828.1NA
Penicillin1,50524≤0.12 to >897.7NA
Tetracycline1,505>32>32≤0.06 to >3222.6NA
Tigecycline1,5050.120.25≤0.015 to 894.8a94.8
Vancomycin1,505120.12 to 4100100
E. faeciumEravacycline1,2210.030.060.008 to 195.0a97.7
Amoxicillin-clavulanate1,221>1>1≤0.12 to >1NA67.2b
Ampicillin762>8>8≤0.25 to >811.811.2
Azithromycin459>8>80.25 to >8NANA
Ceftriaxone459>64>641 to >64NANA
Daptomycin1,22144≤0.06 to >847.5NA
Levofloxacin1,221>8>80.06 to >88.913.1
Linezolid1,22122≤0.5 to >898.199.4
Minocycline1,2214>8≤0.03 to >850.9NA
Penicillin1,221>8>8≤0.06 to >810.4NA
Tetracycline1,22132>32≤0.06 to >3240.8NA
Tigecycline1,2210.120.25≤0.015 to 895.2a95.2
Vancomycin1,2191>32≤0.12 to >3257.657.6
    E. faecium, VREravacycline5100.030.060.008 to 193.1a96.1
Amoxicillin-clavulanate510>1>1≤0.12 to >1NA51.4b
Ampicillin256>8>80.5 to >80.80.8
Azithromycin254>8>80.25 to >8NANA
Ceftriaxone254>64>641 to >64NANA
Daptomycin510240.12 to 850.4NA
Levofloxacin510>8>82 to >80.20.2
Linezolid51022≤0.5 to >898.098.8
Minocycline5108>8≤0.03 to >842.8NA
Penicillin510>8>80.5 to >81.0NA
Tetracycline51032>320.12 to >3226.1NA
Tigecycline5100.120.250.03 to 493.7a93.7
Vancomycin510>16>32>16 to >320.00.0
    E. faecium, VSEravacycline7020.030.060.008 to 0.596.3a98.9
Amoxicillin-clavulanate702>1>1≤0.12 to >1NA79.2b
Ampicillin504>8>8≤0.25 to >817.516.5
Azithromycin198>8>80.25 to >8NANA
Ceftriaxone198>64>641 to >64NANA
Daptomycin70244≤0.06 to 845.6NA
Levofloxacin702>8>80.06 to >815.422.7
Linezolid70222≤0.5 to 898.299.9
Minocycline7021>8≤0.03 to >856.8NA
Penicillin702>8>8≤0.06 to >817.4NA
Tetracycline7021>32≤0.06 to >3251.4NA
Tigecycline7020.120.12≤0.015 to 896.2a96.2
Vancomycin70211≤0.12 to 4100100

U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) MIC interpretative susceptible breakpoints were used in place of CLSI MIC breakpoints for eravacycline (≤0.06 μg/ml) and tigecycline (≤0.25 μg/ml) (21), as none currently exist. FDA tigecycline breakpoints for vancomycin-susceptible E. faecalis were also applied to vancomycin-resistant isolates and to E. faecium.

EUCAST breakpoints were applied for amoxicillin-clavulanate, although these are based on susceptibility testing using a fixed concentration of clavulanic acid of 2 μg/ml, while for this study, amoxicillin-clavulanate was tested with a 2:1 ratio.

VR, vancomycin resistant; VS, vancomycin susceptible; NA, MIC breakpoint not available.

TABLE 4

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

OrganismDrugNo. of isolatesMIC (μg/ml)
% susceptible
50%90%RangeCLSIEUCAST
S. pneumoniaeEravacycline5960.0080.015≤0.001 to 0.03NANA
Amoxicillin-clavulanate4910.064≤0.015 to >483.5NA
Azithromycin5960.12>2≤0.03 to >258.958.4
Ceftaroline1050.0080.12≤0.004 to 0.510098.1
Ceftriaxone5960.031≤0.015 to >292.382.4
Clindamycin1050.03>1≤0.015 to >174.374.3
Daptomycin5950.120.25≤0.03 to 1NANA
Levofloxacin59611≤0.25 to >899.099.0
Linezolid59612≤0.12 to 2100100
Meropenem105≤0.03>0.5≤0.03 to >0.578.1
Minocycline596≤0.068≤0.06 to >8NA75.8
Penicillin596≤0.122≤0.12 to >248.0b48.0b
Tetracycline5960.12>4≤0.03 to >474.874.8
Tigecycline596≤0.0080.06≤0.008 to 0.2598.2aNA
Vancomycin1050.250.5≤0.06 to 0.5100100
S. agalactiaeEravacycline1,2390.030.060.008 to 0.2598.0c99.8d
Amoxicillin-clavulanate5980.120.120.03 to 0.5NANA
Azithromycin1,2390.12>1≤0.03 to >263.763.6
Ceftaroline6410.0150.015≤0.004 to 0.12100NA
Ceftriaxone1,2390.060.12≤0.015 to 0.5100NA
Clindamycin1,0400.06>1≤0.015 to >174.575.9
Daptomycin1,2390.250.50.06 to 1100100
Levofloxacin1,23911≤0.25 to >896.596.5
Linezolid1,239120.25 to 2100100
Meropenem1,0400.060.12≤0.03 to 0.25100NA
Minocycline1,239>8>8≤0.06 to >8NA19.9
Penicillin1,239≤0.12≤0.12≤0.12 to 0.599.699.8
Tetracycline1,239>4>40.06 to >420.320.2
Tigecycline1,2390.060.06≤0.008 to 0.25100c99.8
Vancomycin1,0400.50.50.25 to 1100100
S. pyogenesEravacycline1,1920.030.030.004 to 0.06100c100d
Amoxicillin-clavulanate6650.030.03≤0.015 to 0.25NANA
Azithromycin1,1920.120.5≤0.03 to >290.189.9
Ceftaroline527≤0.0040.008≤0.004 to 0.015100NA
Ceftriaxone1,1920.030.03≤0.015 to 199.9NA
Clindamycin8690.060.06≤0.015 to >194.894.9
Daptomycin1,1920.060.06≤0.03 to 0.25100100
Levofloxacin1,1920.51≤0.25 to >499.699.6
Linezolid1,19212≤0.12 to 2100100
Meropenem869≤0.03≤0.03≤0.03 to 0.12100NA
Minocycline1,1920.124≤0.06 to >8NA86.9
Penicillin1,192≤0.12≤0.12≤0.12 to ≤0.12100100
Tetracycline1,1920.25>4≤0.03 to >486.986.7
Tigecycline1,1920.030.06≤0.008 to 0.12100c100
Vancomycin8690.50.5≤0.06 to 1100100
S. anginosus groupeEravacycline3460.030.06≤0.001 to 0.1299.1c100
Amoxicillin-clavulanate1380.060.25≤0.015 to 2NANA
Azithromycin3460.06>1≤0.03 to >281.2NA
Ceftaroline2080.0150.03≤0.004 to 0.25NANA
Ceftriaxone3460.120.25≤0.015 to >299.499.1
Clindamycin2660.030.06≤0.015 to >191.091.0
Daptomycin3460.250.5≤0.03 to 1100NA
Levofloxacin3460.51≤0.25 to >499.4NA
Linezolid34612≤0.12 to 2100NA
Meropenem266≤0.030.12≤0.03 to 0.5100100
Minocycline346≤0.068≤0.06 to >8NANA
Penicillin346≤0.12≤0.12≤0.12 to 195.498.0
Tetracycline3460.25>4≤0.03 to >469.9NA
Tigecycline3460.030.06≤0.008 to 0.599.7c99.1f
Vancomycin2660.51≤0.06 to 1100100

U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) MIC interpretative breakpoints were used in place of CLSI MIC breakpoints for tigecycline (≤0.06 μg/ml) (21), as none currently exist.

Determined using the CLSI susceptible breakpoint for oral penicillin and EUCAST susceptible breakpoint for benzylpenicillin indications other than meningitis (≤0.06 μg/ml).

U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) MIC interpretative susceptible breakpoints were used in place of CLSI MIC breakpoints for eravacycline (≤0.06 μg/ml) and tigecycline (≤0.25 μg/ml) (21), as none currently exist. The FDA eravacycline susceptible breakpoint for the S. anginosus group was applied to beta-hemolytic streptococci.

The EUCAST eravacycline susceptible breakpoint for the S. anginosus group (≤0.12 μg/ml) was applied to beta-hemolytic streptococci.

The S. anginosus group (n = 346) includes S. anginosus (n = 302), S. constellatus (n = 36), S. intermedius (n = 7), and S. intermedius/S. milleri (n = 1).

EUCAST tigecycline breakpoints for beta-hemolytic streptococci (≤0.12 μg/ml) were applied to the S. anginosus group.

NA, MIC breakpoint not available; —, not evaluable, as the tested MIC range did not extend high enough for the EUCAST susceptible breakpoint for S. pneumoniae.

In vitro activity of eravacycline and comparator agents against staphylococci, cumulative 2013 to 2017 data U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) MIC interpretative breakpoints were used in place of CLSI MIC breakpoints for eravacycline (≤0.06 μg/ml) and tigecycline (≤0.5 μg/ml) (21), as none currently exist. FDA eravacycline and tigecycline breakpoints for S. aureus were applied to the tested coagulase-negative Staphylococcus species. EUCAST eravacycline breakpoints for S. aureus (≤0.25 μg/ml) were applied to the coagulase-negative Staphylococcus species tested. Defined using oxacillin MICs, which were available only for 2015 to 2017. MR, methicillin resistant; MS, methicillin susceptible; NA, MIC breakpoint not available. In vitro activity of eravacycline and comparator agents against enterococci, cumulative 2013 to 2017 data U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) MIC interpretative susceptible breakpoints were used in place of CLSI MIC breakpoints for eravacycline (≤0.06 μg/ml) and tigecycline (≤0.25 μg/ml) (21), as none currently exist. FDA tigecycline breakpoints for vancomycin-susceptible E. faecalis were also applied to vancomycin-resistant isolates and to E. faecium. EUCAST breakpoints were applied for amoxicillin-clavulanate, although these are based on susceptibility testing using a fixed concentration of clavulanic acid of 2 μg/ml, while for this study, amoxicillin-clavulanate was tested with a 2:1 ratio. VR, vancomycin resistant; VS, vancomycin susceptible; NA, MIC breakpoint not available. In vitro activity of eravacycline and comparator agents against streptococci, cumulative 2013 to 2017 data U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) MIC interpretative breakpoints were used in place of CLSI MIC breakpoints for tigecycline (≤0.06 μg/ml) (21), as none currently exist. Determined using the CLSI susceptible breakpoint for oral penicillin and EUCAST susceptible breakpoint for benzylpenicillin indications other than meningitis (≤0.06 μg/ml). U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) MIC interpretative susceptible breakpoints were used in place of CLSI MIC breakpoints for eravacycline (≤0.06 μg/ml) and tigecycline (≤0.25 μg/ml) (21), as none currently exist. The FDA eravacycline susceptible breakpoint for the S. anginosus group was applied to beta-hemolytic streptococci. The EUCAST eravacycline susceptible breakpoint for the S. anginosus group (≤0.12 μg/ml) was applied to beta-hemolytic streptococci. The S. anginosus group (n = 346) includes S. anginosus (n = 302), S. constellatus (n = 36), S. intermedius (n = 7), and S. intermedius/S. milleri (n = 1). EUCAST tigecycline breakpoints for beta-hemolytic streptococci (≤0.12 μg/ml) were applied to the S. anginosus group. NA, MIC breakpoint not available; —, not evaluable, as the tested MIC range did not extend high enough for the EUCAST susceptible breakpoint for S. pneumoniae. 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.
  15 in total

1.  Fluorocyclines. 1. 7-fluoro-9-pyrrolidinoacetamido-6-demethyl-6-deoxytetracycline: a potent, broad spectrum antibacterial agent.

Authors:  Xiao-Yi Xiao; Diana K Hunt; Jingye Zhou; Roger B Clark; Nick Dunwoody; Corey Fyfe; Trudy H Grossman; William J O'Brien; Louis Plamondon; Magnus Rönn; Cuixiang Sun; Wu-Yan Zhang; Joyce A Sutcliffe
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2012-01-04       Impact factor: 7.446

2.  Antibacterial Efficacy of Eravacycline In Vivo against Gram-Positive and Gram-Negative Organisms.

Authors:  Marguerite L Monogue; Abrar K Thabit; Yukihiro Hamada; David P Nicolau
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2016-07-22       Impact factor: 5.191

3.  Antimicrobial susceptibility of clinical isolates of Neisseria gonorrhoeae to alternative antimicrobials with therapeutic potential.

Authors:  P R S Lagacé-Wiens; H J Adam; N M Laing; M R Baxter; I Martin; M R Mulvey; J A Karlowsky; D J Hoban; G G Zhanel
Journal:  J Antimicrob Chemother       Date:  2017-08-01       Impact factor: 5.790

Review 4.  Eravacycline for the treatment of intra-abdominal infections.

Authors:  Matteo Bassetti; Elda Righi
Journal:  Expert Opin Investig Drugs       Date:  2014-09-24       Impact factor: 6.206

Review 5.  The antibiotic pipeline for multi-drug resistant gram negative bacteria: what can we expect?

Authors:  Matthew E Falagas; Andreas D Mavroudis; Konstantinos Z Vardakas
Journal:  Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 5.091

Review 6.  Review of Eravacycline, a Novel Fluorocycline Antibacterial Agent.

Authors:  George G Zhanel; Doris Cheung; Heather Adam; Sheryl Zelenitsky; Alyssa Golden; Frank Schweizer; Bala Gorityala; Philippe R S Lagacé-Wiens; Andrew Walkty; Alfred S Gin; Daryl J Hoban; James A Karlowsky
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 9.546

7.  Eravacycline (TP-434) is efficacious in animal models of infection.

Authors:  Trudy H Grossman; Timothy M Murphy; Andrew M Slee; Denene Lofland; Joyce A Sutcliffe
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2015-02-17       Impact factor: 5.191

8.  In vitro activity of eravacycline against 2213 Gram-negative and 2424 Gram-positive bacterial pathogens isolated in Canadian hospital laboratories: CANWARD surveillance study 2014-2015.

Authors:  George G Zhanel; Melanie R Baxter; Heather J Adam; Joyce Sutcliffe; James A Karlowsky
Journal:  Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis       Date:  2017-12-22       Impact factor: 2.803

9.  Antibacterial activity of eravacycline (TP-434), a novel fluorocycline, against hospital and community pathogens.

Authors:  J A Sutcliffe; W O'Brien; C Fyfe; T H Grossman
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2013-08-26       Impact factor: 5.191

10.  Discovery, research, and development of new antibiotics: the WHO priority list of antibiotic-resistant bacteria and tuberculosis.

Authors:  Evelina Tacconelli; Elena Carrara; Alessia Savoldi; Stephan Harbarth; Marc Mendelson; Dominique L Monnet; Céline Pulcini; Gunnar Kahlmeter; Jan Kluytmans; Yehuda Carmeli; Marc Ouellette; Kevin Outterson; Jean Patel; Marco Cavaleri; Edward M Cox; Chris R Houchens; M Lindsay Grayson; Paul Hansen; Nalini Singh; Ursula Theuretzbacher; Nicola Magrini
Journal:  Lancet Infect Dis       Date:  2017-12-21       Impact factor: 71.421

View more
  6 in total

1.  In Vitro Susceptibility Testing of Eravacycline against Nontuberculous Mycobacteria.

Authors:  Barbara A Brown-Elliott; Richard J Wallace
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2022-08-09       Impact factor: 5.938

Review 2.  Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing for Enterococci.

Authors:  Ayesha Khan; William R Miller; Dierdre Axell-House; Jose M Munita; Cesar A Arias
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2022-06-13       Impact factor: 11.677

3.  Mycotic Pseudoaneurysm: Clinical Course, Management and Prognosis.

Authors:  Moe Ameri; Julian Gonzalez-Fraga; Joseph Orndorff; Alexandra E Ecker; Annie Cherner; Kirav P Patel
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2022-08-25

Review 4.  Re-establishing the utility of tetracycline-class antibiotics for current challenges with antibiotic resistance.

Authors:  Kerry L LaPlante; Abhay Dhand; Kelly Wright; Melanie Lauterio
Journal:  Ann Med       Date:  2022-12       Impact factor: 5.348

5.  Clinical Profile of Monomicrobial Corynebacterium Hip and Knee Periprosthetic Joint Infections.

Authors:  Hussam Tabaja; Don Bambino Geno Tai; Elena Beam; Matthew P Abdel; Aaron J Tande
Journal:  Open Forum Infect Dis       Date:  2022-04-14       Impact factor: 4.423

6.  Planktonic and Biofilm Activity of Eravacycline against Staphylococci Isolated from Periprosthetic Joint Infections.

Authors:  Georg Zhuchenko; Suzannah Schmidt-Malan; Robin Patel
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2020-11-17       Impact factor: 5.191

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.