ArticleMedical microbiology and immunology2025
Synergistic activity of fosfomycin and flucloxacillin against methicillin-susceptible and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: in vitro and in vivo assessment.
Article in Medical microbiology and immunology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Real-World Data on the Use of Intravenous Fosfomycin for the Treatment of Central Nervous System Infections: a Subgroup Analysis from the FORTRESS Study.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2026Article
- In Vitro Evaluation of Fosfomycin Combinations Against Metallo-β-Lactamase-ProducingAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Intravenous Fosfomycin for Gram-Negative and Gram-Positive Bacterial Infections: A Systematic Review of the Clinical Evidence.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Fosfomycin in Complicated Intra-Abdominal Infections in an Intensive Care Setting: Does It Improve the Outcome? A Retrospective Observational Study.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fosfomycin (FOF) exhibits broad-spectrum antimicrobial activity, and is mainly used in combination therapy. Previous in vitro studies have shown synergistic effects of FOF in combination with flucloxacillin (FLX) against Staphylococcus aureus isolates. This study aims to validate these findings in vitro and investigate the synergistic effect in an in vivo Galleria mellonella model. Five methicillin- and FOF-susceptible isolates (ATCC-29213 & 4 clinical isolates); one methicillin- and FOF-resistant strain (DSMZ-23622) and four methicillin-resistant and FOF-susceptible strains (ATCC-33592 & 3 clinical isolates) were tested with checkerboard assays to assess synergism. Time-kill curves were generated for two MSSA (ATCC 29213 and 231/20) and two MRSA strains (ATCC 33592 and DSMZ 23622). The in vivo efficacy of FOF and/or FLX was evaluated by a G. mellonella survival assay and by determining the total bacterial count (TBC) in hemolymph. Checkerboard assays revealed additive or indifferent effects, with some indicating synergism. Time-kill curves demonstrated higher reduction in TBC with combination therapy compared to monotherapy. In vivo, the combination therapy showed the greatest reduction of TBC in larval haemolymph compared to monotherapy, and the survival assay showed highly synergistic activity of FLX plus FOF against MRSA (ATCC-33592) and MSSA (ATCC 6538), resulting in an average reduction in mortality of 48 and 40%, respectively, compared to monotherapies. Therefore, FOF plus FLX could be an alternative for the calculated or definitive treatment of S. aureus infections without antimicrobial susceptibility results or even for salvage therapy of MRSA infections after treatment failure or necessary discontinuation of classical MRSA drugs.
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.