Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20176910›Full record

ArticleAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy2010

CEM-101 activity against Gram-positive organisms.

Leah N Woosley, Mariana Castanheira, Ronald N Jones

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. A long-distance rRNA base pair impacts the ability of macrolide antibiotics to kill bacteria.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2020
    Article
  5. How Macrolide Antibiotics Work.Trends in biochemical sciences · 2018
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Kinetics of drug-ribosome interactions defines the cidality of macrolide antibiotics.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2017
    Article
  9. The macrolide antibiotic renaissance.British journal of pharmacology · 2017
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Leah N WoosleyJMI Laboratories, North Liberty, IA 52317, USA.
Mariana Castanheira
Ronald N Jones
JMI Laboratories · USTufts University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The in vitro activity of CEM-101, a new fluoroketolide, was determined against Gram-positive organisms with various macrolide susceptibility profiles. Experiments for determination of the MICs and minimum bactericidal concentrations (MBCs), timed killing, single-step and multistep mutation rates, the erythromycin induction of resistance, postantibiotic effect (PAE), and drug interactions were performed for CEM-101; and the results were compared to those obtained with telithromycin, macrolides, and lincosamides. The MBCs of CEM-101 remained lower overall than those of telithromycin, and CEM-101 displayed a 2-fold greater potency than the ketolide. Timed-killing curve testing showed that CEM-101 had greater bactericidal activity than telithromycin (a >or=3-log(10)-CFU/ml decrease in the initial inoculum at 24 h) against the staphylococcal isolates tested. The propensity of CEM-101 to cause resistance was low, as determined from the rates of resistance determined in single-step mutational studies (<10(-8) or 10(-9)). In multipassaging studies, mutants of two strains (both of which were USA300 isolates) resistant to CEM-101 emerged. That number was comparable to the number resistant to clindamycin but less than the number resistant to telithromycin. Erythromycin induced CEM-101 resistance in Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus pneumoniae, similar to telithromycin; however, in seven of eight beta-hemolytic streptococci, CEM-101 resistance induction was not observed. CEM-101 showed a significant concentration- and exposure-dependent PAE against the strains tested, with the values ranging from 2.3 to 6.1 h for Gram-positive organisms (these times were longer than those for telithromycin). No antagonism was found in synergy analyses, with enhanced inhibition being most noted for combinations with CEM-101 and ceftriaxone, gentamicin, and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. Overall, this new antimicrobial agent (CEM-101) showed good antimicrobial characteristics compared with those of the agents in its class and exhibited measured parameter values similar or superior to those of utilized comparators, indicating that CEM-101 warrants further clinical evaluation.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsAzithromycinCeftriaxoneClarithromycinDrug Resistance, BacterialDrug SynergismErythromycinGentamicinsGram-Positive BacteriaKetolidesMacrolidesMicrobial Sensitivity TestsOfloxacinStaphylococcus aureusStaphylococcus epidermidisStreptococcus pneumoniaeAnti-Bacterial AgentsAzithromycinCeftriaxoneClarithromycinErythromycinGentamicinsKetolidesMacrolidesOfloxacinsolithromycintelithromycinTriazolesTrimethoprim, Sulfamethoxazole Drug CombinationVancomycin

Identifiers

PMID20176910
PMCPMC2863667
OpenAlexW2168122682

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.