Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19620326›Full record

ArticleAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy2009

Addition of gentamicin or rifampin does not enhance the effectiveness of daptomycin in treatment of experimental endocarditis due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.

J M Miró, C García-de-la-Mària, Y Armero, D Soy, A Moreno, A del Río, M Almela, M Sarasa, C A Mestres, J M Gatell and 3 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 66 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Treatment of Methicillin-ResistantMedicines (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. [Infective endocarditis : Update on prophylaxis, diagnosis, and treatment].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2016
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

J M MiróInfectious Diseases Service, Hospital Clínic, Institut d'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer, University of Barcelona School of Medicine, Barcelona, Catalunya, Spain. jmmiro@ub.edu
C García-de-la-Mària
Y Armero
D Soy
A Moreno
A del Río
M Almela
M Sarasa
C A Mestres
J M Gatell
M T Jiménez de Anta
F Marco
Hospital Clinic Experimental Endocarditis Study Group
Universitat de Barcelona · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study evaluated the activity of daptomycin combined with either gentamicin or rifampin against three methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) clinical isolates in vitro and one isolate in vivo against a representative strain (MRSA-572). Time-kill experiments showed that daptomycin was bactericidal against these strains at concentrations over the MIC. Daptomycin at sub-MIC concentrations plus gentamicin at 1x and 2x the MIC yielded synergy, while the addition of rifampin at 2 to 4 microg/ml resulted in indifference (two strains) or antagonism (one strain). The in vivo activity of daptomycin (6 mg/kg of body weight once a day) was evaluated +/- gentamicin (1 mg/kg intravenously [i.v.] every 8 h [q8h]) or rifampin (300 mg i.v. q8h) in a rabbit model of infective endocarditis by simulating human pharmacokinetics. Daptomycin plus gentamicin (median, 0 [interquartile range, 0 to 2] log10 CFU/g vegetation) was as effective as daptomycin alone (0 [0 to 2] log10 CFU/g vegetation) in reducing the density of bacteria in valve vegetations (P = 0.83), and both were more effective than daptomycin plus rifampin (3 [2 to 3.5] log10 CFU/g vegetation; P < 0.05) for the strain studied. In addition, daptomycin sterilized a ratio of vegetations that was similar to that of daptomycin plus gentamicin (10/15 [67%] versus 9/15 [60%]; P = 0.7), and both regimens did so more than daptomycin plus rifampin (3/15 [20%]; P = 0.01 and P = 0.02, respectively). No statistical difference was noted between daptomycin plus gentamicin and daptomycin alone for MRSA treatment. In the combination arm, all isolates from vegetations remained susceptible to daptomycin, gentamicin, and rifampin. Sixty-one percent of the isolates (8/13) acquired resistance to rifampin during monotherapy. In the daptomycin arm, resistance was detected in only one case, in which the daptomycin MIC rose to 2 microg/ml among the recovered bacteria. In conclusion, the addition of gentamicin or rifampin does not enhance the effectiveness of daptomycin in the treatment of experimental endocarditis due to MRSA.

Indexed as

AnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsDaptomycinEndocarditis, BacterialGentamicinsHumansMethicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureusMicrobial Sensitivity TestsRabbitsAnti-Bacterial AgentsDaptomycinGentamicins

Identifiers

PMID19620326
PMCPMC2764216
OpenAlexW2130961698

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.