Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23545533›Full record

ArticleAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy2013

Evaluation of ceftaroline activity against heteroresistant vancomycin-intermediate Staphylococcus aureus and vancomycin-intermediate methicillin-resistant S. aureus strains in an in vitro pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic model: exploring the "seesaw effect".

Brian J Werth, Molly E Steed, Glenn W Kaatz, Michael J Rybak

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.6field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 63 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Knockout ofJournal of bacteriology · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Multicenter Cohort of Patients With Methicillin-ResistantOpen forum infectious diseases · 2020
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Mechanisms of drug resistance: daptomycin resistance.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2015
    Review
  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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Brian J WerthAnti-Infective Research Laboratory, Department of Pharmacy Practice, Eugene Applebaum College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences.
Molly E Steed
Glenn W Kaatz
Michael J Rybak
Eugene Applebaum College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences · USJohn D. Dingell VA Medical Center · USWayne State University · US

Funding

PHS HHS NIH R21A1092055-01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A "seesaw effect" in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) has been demonstrated, whereby susceptibility to β-lactam antimicrobials increases as glyco- and lipopeptide susceptibility decreases. We investigated this effect by evaluating the activity of the anti-MRSA cephalosporin ceftaroline against isogenic pairs of MRSA strains with various susceptibilities to vancomycin in an in vitro pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) model. The activities of ceftaroline at 600 mg every 12 h (q12h) (targeted free maximum concentration of drug in serum [fC(max)], 15.2 μg/ml; half-life [t(1/2)], 2.3 h) and vancomycin at 1 g q12h (targeted fC(max), 18 μg/ml; t(1/2), 6 h) were evaluated against 3 pairs of isogenic clinical strains of MRSA that developed increased MICs to vancomycin in patients while on therapy using a two-compartment hollow-fiber PK/PD model with a starting inoculum of ~10(7) CFU/ml over a 96-h period. Bacterial killing and development of resistance were evaluated. Expression of penicillin-binding proteins (PBPs) 2 and 4 was evaluated by reverse transcription (RT)-PCR. The achieved pharmacokinetic parameters were 98 to 119% of the targeted values. Ceftaroline and vancomycin were bactericidal against 5/6 and 1/6 strains, respectively, at 96 h. Ceftaroline was more active against the mutant strains than the parent strains, with this difference being statistically significant for 2/3 strain pairs at 96 h. The level of PBP2 expression was 4.4× higher in the vancomycin-intermediate S. aureus (VISA) strain in 1/3 pairs. The levels of PBP2 and PBP4 expression were otherwise similar between the parent and mutant strains. These data support the seesaw hypothesis that ceftaroline, like traditional β-lactams, is more active against strains that are less susceptible to vancomycin even when the ceftaroline MICs are identical. Further research to explore these unique findings is warranted.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsCephalosporinsVancomycinVancomycin ResistanceCeftarolineHumansMethicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureusMicrobial Sensitivity TestsPenicillin-Binding ProteinsStaphylococcus aureusAnti-Bacterial AgentsCeftarolineCephalosporinsPenicillin-Binding ProteinsVancomycin

Identifiers

PMID23545533
PMCPMC3716128
OpenAlexW2141948883

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.