ArticleThe Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy2026
Enhanced activity of apramycin and apramycin-based combinations against Mycobacteroides abscessus.
Article in The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Resistance to Plazomicin: An Analysis of the Evidence from In Vitro Antimicrobial Susceptibility Studies.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Design, Synthesis, and Biological Evaluation of 6″-Modified Apramycin Derivatives to Overcome Aminoglycoside Resistance.Pharmaceutics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMycobacteroides abscessus is a rapidly growing non-tuberculous mycobacterium that causes chronic lung and soft tissue infections. Treatment options are severely limited. Amikacin has historically been a mainstay of combination treatment regimens. However, irreversible hearing loss and vestibular toxicity have led to a search for alternative agents. Apramycin is a novel aminoglycoside currently in Phase I clinical trials that may offer lower potential for ototoxic and renal toxic side effects.
objectivesThe goal of this study was to compare apramycin's in vitro activity with amikacin and other aminoglycosides against a large collection of M. abscessus clinical isolates, alone, and for apramycin and amikacin, in combination with clofazimine or linezolid. We also examined activity against a more limited collection of other rapidly growing mycobacteria.
methodsAnalysis was performed using reference broth microdilution MIC testing, inkjet printer-assisted checkerboard assays, and time-kill assays.
resultsAgainst M. abscessus, the MIC50/90 for apramycin (2 mg/L) was one-eighth that of amikacin (16 mg/L). Plazomicin was inactive, and organisms were rarely susceptible to tobramycin. Synergy of either apramycin or amikacin with clofazimine or linezolid was not detected by checkerboard assay. In time-kill studies, clofazimine modestly increased activity of apramycin and, to a lesser extent, amikacin. Apramycin and amikacin showed delayed bacterial killing that either achieved or approached a bactericidal threshold. Apramycin was similarly potent against other rapidly growing mycobacteria tested.
conclusionsApramycin exhibits more potent in vitro activity against a diverse set of M. abscessus and other rapidly growing mycobacteria than currently recommended aminoglycosides.
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.