Daptomycin combinations as alternative therapies in experimental foreign-body infection caused by meticillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus.

Whilst levofloxacin (LVX) in combination with rifampicin (RIF) is considered the optimal treatment for prosthetic joint infection (PJI) caused by meticillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA), no therapeutic alternatives have been accurately evaluated. Based on the high effectiveness of the combination of daptomycin (DAP) plus RIF against meticillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) in this setting, in this study the efficacy of DAP+RIF and DAP+LVX combinations was tested as alternative therapies for foreign-body infections (FBIs) caused by MSSA. A tissue-cage infection model was performed using an MSSA strain. Male Wistar rats were treated for 7 days with LVX, DAP, RIF or the combinations LVX+RIF, DAP+RIF and DAP+LVX. Antibiotic efficacy was evaluated by bacterial counts from tissue cage fluid (TCF) and the cure rate was determined from adhered bacteria. Resistance was screened. Monotherapies were less effective than combinations (P<0.05), and resistance to DAP and RIF emerged. DAP+RIF (decrease in bacterial counts in TCF, -4.9logCFU/mL; cure rate, 92%) was the most effective therapy (P<0.05). There were no differences between LVX+RIF (-3.4logCFU/mL; 11%) and DAP+LVX (-3.3logCFU/mL; 47%). No resistant strains appeared with combined therapies. In conclusion, the combinations DAP+RIF and DAP+LVX showed good efficacy and prevented resistance. DAP+RIF provided higher efficacy than LVX+RIF. These DAP combinations were efficacious alternatives therapies for MSSA FBI. Further studies should confirm whether DAP+RIF may be useful as a first-line therapy in the setting of PJI caused by MSSA.

Comparative efficacies of cloxacillin-daptomycin and the standard cloxacillin-rifampin therapies against an experimental foreign-body infection by methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus.

We compared the efficacies of daptomycin (doses equivalent to 8 to 10 mg/kg of body weight/day in humans) and cloxacillin alone with those of cloxacillin-rifampin and cloxacillin-daptomycin combinations, using a tissue cage methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) infection model. Monotherapies were less effective than combinations (P<0.05), and daptomycin resistance emerged. Cloxacillin-daptomycin proved as effective as cloxacillin-rifampin and prevented the appearance of resistance; this combination may be an alternative anti-MSSA therapy, which may offer greater benefits in the early treatment of prosthetic joint infections (PJI).

High doses of levofloxacin vs moxifloxacin against staphylococcal experimental foreign-body infection: the effect of higher MIC-related pharmacokinetic parameters on efficacy.

OBJECTIVES: Since levofloxacin at high doses was the best therapy in staphylococcal tissue-cage model of foreign-body infection, we hypothesized that moxifloxacin with higher ratio of area under the concentration-time curve to the MIC (AUC/MIC) would provide better results. METHODS: MICs, MBCs, MPCs (mutant prevention concentration) and 24h kill-curves were determined in the log and stationary phases. Using the aforementioned model, we tested the efficacy of levofloxacin 100mg/kg/d, moxifloxacin 40mg/kg/d and moxifloxacin 80mg/kg/d; they were equivalent to human levels for 1000mg/d, 400mg/d and 800mg/d, respectively. We screened for the appearance of resistant strains. RESULTS: MICs and MBCs in logarithmic and stationary phases and MPCs of levofloxacin were 0.5, 1 and 4, 0.8microg/ml, respectively, and those of moxifloxacin 0.12, 0.25 and 2, 0.25microg/ml. AUC/MIC were 234 (levofloxacin), 431 (moxifloxacin 40) and 568 (moxifloxacin 80). Bacterial counts decreases in tissue-cage fluids (means of logCFU/ml) were -1.81 (n=25), -1.31 (23), and -1.46 (20), respectively; for controls it was 0.24 (22). All groups were better than controls (p<0.05); no differences between them existed. CONCLUSIONS: Moxifloxacin with higher AUC/MIC ratio did not improve the efficacy of high doses of levofloxacin.

Efficacy of linezolid alone and in combination with rifampin in staphylococcal experimental foreign-body infection.

OBJECTIVES: The knowledge about efficacy of linezolid alone or in combination with rifampin in device infections is limited. We test their in vitro and in vivo efficacy in a rat model of foreign-body infection by methicillin-susceptible S. aureus. METHODS: In vitro studies for logarithmic and stationary bacteria were performed. In vivo efficacy (decrease in bacterial counts in tissue cage fluid) was evaluated at: (i) after 7-day therapy (groups: linezolid, cloxacillin, rifampin, linezolid-rifampin and cloxacillin-rifampin); and (ii) after 10-day therapy (groups: rifampin and linezolid-rifampin). RESULTS: After 7-day therapy all groups were significantly better than controls; linezolid (Delta log cfu/ml: -0.59, no resistant strains) and cloxacillin (-0.85) were the least effective therapy; linezolid was significantly less active (P<0.05) than rifampin (-1.22, resistance 90%), cloxacillin-rifampin (-1.3) and linezolid-rifampin (-1.14). After 10-day therapy linezolid-rifampin was the most effective treatment (Delta log -1.44, no resistance, P<0.05); in contrast, rifampin resulted ineffective (Delta log 0.1) due to the growth of resistant strains (100%). CONCLUSIONS: Linezolid alone showed moderate efficacy, whereas its combination with rifampin prevented the emergence of rifampin resistance. The efficacy of linezolid-rifampin combination was initially similar to that of rifampin alone, but in contrast to rifampin, it increased over time revealing the impact of protection against rifampin resistance and the benefits of rifampin activity.