Azithromycin and clarithromycin: overview and comparison with erythromycin.

Azithromycin and clarithromycin are erythromycin analogues that have recently been approved by the FDA. These drugs inhibit protein synthesis in susceptible organisms by binding to the 50S ribosomal subunit. Alteration in this binding site confers simultaneous resistance to all macrolide antibiotics. Clarithromycin is several-fold more active in vitro than erythromycin against gram-positive organisms, while azithromycin is 2- to 4-fold less potent. Azithromycin has excellent in vitro activity against H influenzae (MIC90 0.5 microgram/ml), whereas clarithromycin, although less active against H influenzae (MIC90 4.0 micrograms/ml) by standard in vitro testing, is metabolized into an active compound with twice the in vitro activity of the parent drug. Both azithromycin and clarithromycin are equivalent to standard oral therapies against respiratory tract and soft tissue infections caused by susceptible organisms, including S aureus, S pneumoniae, S pyogenes, H influenzae, and M catarrhalis. Clarithromycin is more active in vitro against the atypical respiratory pathogens (e.g., Legionella), although insufficient in vivo data are available to demonstrate a clinical difference between azithromycin and clarithromycin. Superior pharmacodynamic properties separate the new macrolides from the prototype, erythromycin. Azithromycin has a large volume of distribution, and, although serum concentrations remain low, it concentrates readily within tissues, demonstrating a tissue half-life of approximately three days. These properties allow novel dosing schemes for azithromycin, because a five-day course will provide therapeutic tissue concentrations for at least ten days. Clarithromycin has a longer serum half-life and better tissue penetration than erythromycin, allowing twice-a-day dosing for most common infections. Azithromycin pharmacokinetics permit a five-day, single daily dose regimen for respiratory tract and soft tissue infections, and a single 1 g dose of azithromycin effectively treats C trachomatis genital infections; these more convenient dosing schedules improve patient compliance. Azithromycin and clarithromycin also are active against some unexpected pathogens (e.g., B burgdorferi, T gondii, M avium complex, and M leprae). Clarithromycin, thus far, appears the most active against atypical mycobacteria, giving new hope to what has become a difficult group of infections to treat. Gastrointestinal distress, a well known and major obstacle to patient compliance with erythromycin, is relatively uncommon with the new macrolides. Further clinical data and experiences may better define and expand the role of these new macrolides in the treatment of infectious diseases.

Gastrointestinal tract colonization with vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium in an animal model.

Vancomycin-resistant enterococci have become important nosocomial pathogens in many institutions. The gastrointestinal tract of susceptible hosts serves as the likely reservoir from which the organism is disseminated. To study factors promoting colonization and the efficacy of decontamination therapy with antimicrobial agents, a model of gastrointestinal colonization with vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium was developed in CF1 mice. At baseline, all animals were colonized with non-vancomycin-resistant enterococci (5.0 log10 CFU/g), but vancomycin-resistant organisms were not detectable. Following gastric inoculation with 5 x 10(8) CFU of a clinical isolate of vancomycin-resistant E. faecium, the strain transiently colonized the gastrointestinal tract of 100% of mice but was undetectable by Day 14 (< or = 2.7 log10 mean CFU/g). In animals who received 5 mg of streptomycin per ml or 250 micrograms of vancomycin per ml in drinking water, colonization with the organism occurred at significantly higher bacterial counts than in controls at 7 days following inoculation (9.4 for vancomycin, 9.2 for streptomycin, and 5.1 log10 mean CFU/g for controls; P < 0.05). Fecal concentrations of vancomycin-resistant E. faecium persisted at high counts through Day 22 in mice receiving these antibiotics, but low counts were also still detected in 3 of 10 control animals. In mice with previously established vancomycin-resistant E. faecium colonization, oral administration of ramoplanin, a lipoglycodepsipeptide to which the strain was susceptible, suppressed growth of all enterococci in feces, including the vancomycin-resistant strain after 7 days of therapy (< or = 3.1 and < or = 3.3 log10 mean CFU/g for vancomycin and streptomycin groups, respectively). All mice had a recurrence of colonization with vancomycin-resistant E. faecium after the ramoplanin was discontinued. In summary, this animal model demonstrates the importance of antibiotics in predisposing to gastrointestinal colonization with vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus spp. Although treatment with ramoplanin temporarily suppressed the organism, recurrence of colonization due to relapse or reinfection occurred.

Antibiotic treatment of experimental endocarditis due to vancomycin- and ampicillin-resistant Enterococcus faecium.

We compared ciprofloxacin, rifampin, and gentamicin treatments, alone and in combination, for 5 days in the therapy of experimental aortic valve endocarditis in rats caused by a clinical isolate of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium. The MICs and MBCs of vancomycin, ciprofloxacin, rifampin, and gentamicin were 250 and > 1,000, 3.1 and 6.3, 0.098 and 1.6, and 12.5 and > 50 micrograms/ml, respectively. Infected rats were sacrificed after completing 5 days of therapy. Additional rats within each treatment group were followed for 5 days beyond the last dose of antibiotic therapy. Although survivals in the different groups were not significantly different after 5 days of therapy, survival was significantly better 5 days beyond the last dose of antibiotic therapy in rats treated with rifampin-containing regimens. The combination of ciprofloxacin and gentamicin was bactericidal in vitro and in vegetations from rats with enterococcal endocarditis. Rifampin alone was similarly bactericidal in vivo, but it was not significantly better than rifampin in combination with other antibiotics. Subpopulations resistant to rifampin, but not ciprofloxacin, were detected in the inoculum and in most vegetations during therapy. However, the combination of ciprofloxacin plus both gentamicin and rifampin reduced both the rifampin-susceptible and -resistant population in vegetations of 9 of 10 animals below the level of detection after 5 days of therapy. Nevertheless, a residual enterococcal population apparently remained in numbers of < 2 log10 CFU/g after 5 days of therapy, which resulted in relapse. Perhaps a longer course of therapy would have eliminated this residual population and improved efficacy.