Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24663016›Full record

ArticleAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy2014

Evaluation of ceftaroline, vancomycin, daptomycin, or ceftaroline plus daptomycin against daptomycin-nonsusceptible methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in an in vitro pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic model of simulated endocardial vegetations.

Brian J Werth, Katie E Barber, Cortney E Ireland, Michael J Rybak

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. A Retrospective Cohort Study Comparing Dual Therapy With Ceftaroline With Vancomycin or Daptomycin Monotherapy for High-Grade or Persistent MRSA Bacteremia.The Journal of pharmacy technology : jPT : official publication of the Association of Pharmacy Technicians · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Antimicrobial and Antivirulence Action ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2020
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Brian J WerthAnti-Infective Research Laboratory, Eugene Applebaum College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, USA.
Katie E BarberAnti-Infective Research Laboratory, Eugene Applebaum College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, USA.
Cortney E IrelandAnti-Infective Research Laboratory, Eugene Applebaum College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, USA.
Michael J RybakAnti-Infective Research Laboratory, Eugene Applebaum College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, USA School of Medicine, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, USA m.rybak@wayne.edu.
Eugene Applebaum College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences · USWayne State University · US

Funding

PHS HHS R21A1092055-01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Infective endocarditis (IE) caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) with reduced susceptibility to vancomycin and daptomycin has few adequate therapeutic options. Ceftaroline (CPT) is bactericidal against daptomycin (DAP)-nonsusceptible (DNS) and vancomycin-intermediate MRSA, but supporting data are limited for IE. This study evaluated the activities of ceftaroline, vancomycin, daptomycin, and the combination of ceftaroline plus daptomycin against DNS MRSA in a pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) model of simulated endocardial vegetations (SEVs). Simulations of ceftaroline-fosamil (600 mg) every 8 h (q8h) (maximum concentration of drug in serum [Cmax], 21.3 mg/liter; half-life [t1/2], 2.66 h), daptomycin (10 mg/kg of body weight/day) (Cmax, 129.7 mg/liter; t1/2, 8 h), vancomycin (1 g) q8h (minimum concentration of drug in serum [Cmin], 20 mg/liter; t1/2, 5 h), and ceftaroline plus daptomycin were evaluated against 3 clinical DNS, vancomycin-intermediate MRSA in a two-compartment, in vitro, PK/PD SEV model over 96 h with a starting inoculum of ∼8 log10 CFU/g. Bactericidal activity was defined as a ≥ 3-log10 CFU/g reduction from the starting inoculum. Therapeutic enhancement of combinations was defined as ≥ 2-log10 CFU/g reduction over the most active agent alone. MIC values for daptomycin, vancomycin, and ceftaroline were 4 mg/liter, 4 to 8 mg/liter, and 0.5 to 1 mg/liter, respectively, for all strains. At simulated exposures, vancomycin was bacteriostatic, but daptomycin and ceftaroline were bactericidal. By 96 h, ceftaroline monotherapy offered significantly improved killing compared to other agents against one strain. The combination of DAP plus CPT demonstrated therapeutic enhancement, resulting in significantly improved killing versus either agent alone against 2/3 (67%) strains. CPT demonstrated bactericidal activity against DNS, vancomycin-intermediate MRSA at high bacterial densities. Ceftaroline plus daptomycin may offer more rapid and sustained activity against some MRSA in the setting of high-inoculum infections like IE and should also be considered.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsCeftarolineCephalosporinsColony Count, MicrobialComputer SimulationDaptomycinDrug CombinationsEndocarditis, BacterialHalf-LifeHumansMethicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureusMicrobial Sensitivity TestsStaphylococcal InfectionsVancomycinAnti-Bacterial AgentsCeftarolineCephalosporinsDaptomycinDrug CombinationsVancomycin

Identifiers

PMID24663016
PMCPMC4068431
OpenAlexW2041050715

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.