ArticleMedical microbiology and immunology2017
The anti-biofilm effect of macrolides in a rat model of S. aureus foreign-body infection: Might it be of clinical relevance?
Article in Medical microbiology and immunology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Macrolides at Clinically-Relevant Concentrations May Induce Biofilm Formation in Macrolide-ResistantAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Understanding the Role of Biofilms and Superantigens in Chronic Rhinosinusitis.Current otorhinolaryngology reports · 2018Article
- Combination Susceptibility Testing of Common AntimicrobialsFrontiers in microbiology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Using a tissue cage infection rat model, we test the anti-biofilm effect of clarithromycin on the efficacy of daptomycin and a daptomycin + rifampicin combination against methicillin-susceptible (MSSA) and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). In vitro: kill curves, daptomycin exposure studies and clarithromycin activity against biofilm were studied. In vivo: the efficacies of clarithromycin, daptomycin or daptomycin + clarithromycin, daptomycin + rifampicin and daptomycin + rifampicin + clarithromycin combinations were evaluated. In vitro: the addition of clarithromycin to daptomycin improved its activity only against one MRSA strain. Changes in daptomycin MIC values appeared more quickly in MSSA than in MRSA strain, and this was not modified by clarithromycin. Clarithromycin prevented biofilm formation but did not eradicate it. In vivo: the daptomycin + rifampicin combination was the most effective treatment and was not improved by the addition of clarithromycin. Daptomycin and daptomycin + clarithromycin had similar effectiveness; the combination protected against the appearance of daptomycin resistance only in one MRSA strain. Using a staphylococcal foreign-body infection model, we observed a slight effect with the addition of clarithromycin to daptomycin, which resulted in protection against the appearance of daptomycin-resistant strains. However, efficacy was not improved. Overall, our findings do not support a relevant clinical role for macrolides in treating device-related staphylococcal infections based on their anti-biofilm effect.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.