Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30673774›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Comparison of in vitro static and dynamic assays to evaluate the efficacy of an antimicrobial drug combination against Staphylococcus aureus.

Diane C Broussou, Pierre-Louis Toutain, Frédérique Woehrlé, Farid El Garch, Alain Bousquet-Melou, Aude A Ferran

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. DynamicAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Effect of Ciprofloxacin, Levofloxacin, and Ofloxacin onAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

6 authors.

Diane C BroussouUMR 1436 INTHERES, Université de Toulouse, INRA, ENVT, Toulouse, France.ORCID 0000-0002-0016-5820
Pierre-Louis ToutainDepartment of Veterinary Basics Sciences, Royal Veterinary College, London, United Kingdom.
Frédérique WoehrléVetoquinol SA, Lure, France.
Farid El GarchVetoquinol SA, Lure, France.
Alain Bousquet-MelouUMR 1436 INTHERES, Université de Toulouse, INRA, ENVT, Toulouse, France.
Aude A FerranUMR 1436 INTHERES, Université de Toulouse, INRA, ENVT, Toulouse, France.ORCID 0000-0002-6629-1088

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

An easily implementable strategy to reduce treatment failures in severe bacterial infections is to combine already available antibiotics. However, most in vitro combination assays are performed by exposing standard bacterial inocula to constant concentrations of antibiotics over less than 24h, which can be poorly representative of clinical situations. The aim of this study was to assess the ability of static and dynamic in vitro Time-Kill Studies (TKS) to identify the potential benefits of an antibiotic combination (here, amikacin and vancomycin) on two different inoculum sizes of two S. aureus strains. In the static TKS (sTKS), performed by exposing both strains over 24h to constant antibiotic concentrations, the activity of the two drugs combined was not significantly different the better drug used alone. However, the dynamic TKS (dTKS) performed over 5 days by exposing one strain to fluctuating concentrations representative of those observed in patients showed that, with the large inoculum, the activities of the drugs, used alone or in combination, significantly differed over time. Vancomycin did not kill bacteria, amikacin led to bacterial regrowth whereas the combination progressively decreased the bacterial load. Thus, dTKS revealed an enhanced effect of the combination on a large inoculum not observed in sTKS. The discrepancy between the sTKS and dTKS results highlights that the assessment of the efficacy of a combination for severe infections associated with a high bacterial load could be demanding. These situations probably require the implementation of dynamic assays over the entire expected treatment duration rather than the sole static assays performed with steady drug concentrations over 24h.

Indexed as

AmikacinAnti-Bacterial AgentsBacterial LoadBiofilmsDrug CombinationsDrug Therapy, CombinationMethicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureusMicrobial Sensitivity TestsStaphylococcus aureusTime FactorsVancomycinAmikacinAnti-Bacterial AgentsDrug CombinationsVancomycin

Identifiers

PMID30673774
PMCPMC6344103

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.