» Articles » PMID: 24217694

In Vitro Pharmacodynamics of Human Simulated Exposures of Ceftaroline and Daptomycin Against MRSA, HVISA, and VISA with and Without Prior Vancomycin Exposure

Overview
Specialty Pharmacology
Date 2013 Nov 13
PMID 24217694
Citations 8
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The effects of prior vancomycin exposure on ceftaroline and daptomycin therapy against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) have not been widely studied. Humanized free-drug exposures of vancomycin at 1 g every 12 h (q12h), ceftaroline at 600 mg q12h, and daptomycin at 10 mg/kg of body weight q24h were simulated in a 96-h in vitro pharmacodynamic model against three MRSA isolates, including one heteroresistant vancomycin-intermediate S. aureus (hVISA) isolate and one VISA isolate. A total of five regimens were tested: vancomycin, ceftaroline, and daptomycin alone for the entire 96 h, and then sequential therapy with vancomycin for 48 h followed by ceftaroline or daptomycin for 48 h. Microbiological responses were measured by the changes in log10 CFU during 96 h from baseline. Control isolates grew to 9.16 ± 0.32, 9.13 ± 0.14, and 8.69 ± 0.28 log10 CFU for MRSA, hVISA, and VISA, respectively. Vancomycin initially achieved ≥3 log10 CFU reductions against the MRSA and hVISA isolates, followed by regrowth beginning at 48 h; minimal activity was observed against VISA. The change in 96-h log10 CFU was largest for sequential therapy with vancomycin followed by ceftaroline (-5.22 ± 1.2, P = 0.010 versus ceftaroline) and for sequential therapy with vancomycin followed by ceftaroline (-3.60 ± 0.6, P = 0.037 versus daptomycin), compared with daptomycin (-2.24 ± 1.0), vancomycin (-1.40 ± 1.8), and sequential therapy with vancomycin followed by daptomycin (-1.32 ± 1.0, P > 0.5 for the last three regimens). Prior exposure of vancomycin at 1 g q12h reduced the initial microbiological response of daptomycin, particularly for hVISA and VISA isolates, but did not affect the response of ceftaroline. In the scenario of poor vancomycin response for high-inoculum MRSA infection, a ceftaroline-containing regimen may be preferred.

Citing Articles

Efficacy of Ceftaroline against Methicillin-Susceptible Staphylococcus aureus Exhibiting the Cefazolin High-Inoculum Effect in a Rat Model of Endocarditis.

Singh K, Tran T, Nannini E, Tam V, Arias C, Murray B Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2017; 61(7).

PMID: 28483961 PMC: 5487651. DOI: 10.1128/AAC.00324-17.


Fosfomycin Enhances the Activity of Daptomycin against Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococci in an In Vitro Pharmacokinetic-Pharmacodynamic Model.

Hall Snyder A, Werth B, Nonejuie P, McRoberts J, Pogliano J, Sakoulas G Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2016; 60(10):5716-23.

PMID: 27431211 PMC: 5038233. DOI: 10.1128/AAC.00687-16.


In Vitro Pharmacodynamics of Vancomycin against Methicillin-Susceptible and -Resistant Staphylococcus aureus: Considering the Variability in Observed Tissue Exposure.

Hamada Y, Kuti J, Nicolau D Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2015; 60(2):955-61.

PMID: 26621619 PMC: 4750711. DOI: 10.1128/AAC.01553-15.


In Vitro Pharmacodynamics of Human Simulated Exposures of Telavancin against Methicillin-Susceptible and -Resistant Staphylococcus aureus with and without Prior Vancomycin Exposure.

Thabit A, Nicolau D, Kuti J Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2015; 60(1):222-8.

PMID: 26482306 PMC: 4704209. DOI: 10.1128/AAC.02033-15.


Daptomycin non-susceptible, vancomycin-intermediate Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis treated with ceftaroline and daptomycin: case report and brief review of the literature.

Baxi S, Chan D, Jain V Infection. 2015; 43(6):751-4.

PMID: 25805524 PMC: 4583316. DOI: 10.1007/s15010-015-0763-0.


References
1.
Steed M, Vidaillac C, Rybak M . Evaluation of ceftaroline activity versus daptomycin (DAP) against DAP-nonsusceptible methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus strains in an in vitro pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2011; 55(7):3522-6. PMC: 3122384. DOI: 10.1128/AAC.00347-11. View

2.
Larsson A, Walker K, Raddatz J, Rotschafer J . The concentration-independent effect of monoexponential and biexponential decay in vancomycin concentrations on the killing of Staphylococcus aureus under aerobic and anaerobic conditions. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1996; 38(4):589-97. DOI: 10.1093/jac/38.4.589. View

3.
Gentry C, Rodvold K, Novak R, Hershow R, Naderer O . Retrospective evaluation of therapies for Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis. Pharmacotherapy. 1997; 17(5):990-7. View

4.
Moise P, Sakoulas G, Forrest A, Schentag J . Vancomycin in vitro bactericidal activity and its relationship to efficacy in clearance of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2007; 51(7):2582-6. PMC: 1913284. DOI: 10.1128/AAC.00939-06. View

5.
Kuti J, Kiffer C, Mendes C, Nicolau D . Pharmacodynamic comparison of linezolid, teicoplanin and vancomycin against clinical isolates of Staphylococcus aureus and coagulase-negative staphylococci collected from hospitals in Brazil. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2007; 14(2):116-23. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2007.01885.x. View