Singh K V, Zscheck K K, Murray B E
Center for the Study of Emerging and Re-Emerging Pathogens, The University of Texas Medical School, Houston, Texas 77030, USA.
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2000 Dec;44(12):3434-7. doi: 10.1128/AAC.44.12.3434-3437.2000.
We used a mouse peritonitis model to evaluate the in vivo efficacy of telithromycin (HMR 3647) (TEL) and erythromycin (ERY) against four strains of Enterococcus faecalis and three strains of Enterococcus faecium with differing susceptibilities to TEL. TEL was highly active in vivo against Ery-susceptible (Ery(s)) and -intermediate (Ery(i)) strains (MIC of TEL = 0.015 to 0.062 microg/ml) and showed less efficacy against Ery-resistant (Ery(r)) isolates (MIC of TEL = 4 to 16 microg/ml), although this was overcome in part by a second subcutaneous dose. Quinupristin-dalfopristin was also noted to have less efficacy against Ery(r) versus Ery(s) or Ery(i) E. faecium strains, but this difference was reduced by intravenous administration. In conclusion, TEL was more potent in vivo against enterococci than was ERY; its activity was lowered by the presence of erm(B)-mediated Ery(r).
我们使用小鼠腹膜炎模型来评估泰利霉素（HMR 3647）（TEL）和红霉素（ERY）对四株粪肠球菌和三株屎肠球菌的体内疗效，这些菌株对泰利霉素的敏感性各不相同。泰利霉素在体内对红霉素敏感（Ery(s)）和中介（Ery(i)）菌株（泰利霉素的MIC = 0.015至0.062微克/毫升）具有高活性，而对红霉素耐药（Ery(r)）分离株（泰利霉素的MIC = 4至16微克/毫升）的疗效较差，不过通过第二次皮下给药可部分克服这一问题。还注意到，与Ery(s)或Ery(i)屎肠球菌菌株相比，奎奴普丁-达福普汀对Ery(r)菌株的疗效较差，但通过静脉给药可缩小这种差异。总之，泰利霉素在体内对肠球菌的效力比红霉素更强；erm(B)介导的Ery(r)的存在会降低其活性。
