Perronne C M, Malinverni R, Glauser M P
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1987 Apr;31(4):539-43. doi: 10.1128/AAC.31.4.539.
The efficacy of a 5-day treatment with coumermycin A1 (hereafter referred to as coumermycin) (at three dosage regimens), with ciprofloxacin, or with coumermycin plus ciprofloxacin was tested in experimental aortic valve endocarditis induced in rats by a strain of methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus and was compared with the efficacy of a 5-day treatment with cloxacillin plus gentamicin. While coumermycin was far less effective than cloxacillin plus gentamicin in reducing the bacterial counts in vegetations (P less than 10(-8), ciprofloxacin was as effective as cloxacillin plus gentamicin. Coumermycin plus ciprofloxacin was less effective than ciprofloxacin alone (P = 0.01). For endocarditis induced by two additional methicillin-susceptible S. aureus strains, the high-dosage regimen of coumermycin (12 mg/kg every 12 h) had the same low efficacy. Coumermycin-resistant variants of S. aureus emerged in most of the vegetations during coumermycin treatment. The ciprofloxacin susceptibility of S. aureus was unchanged during ciprofloxacin treatment. The addition of ciprofloxacin to coumermycin in the treatment did not prevent the emergence of coumermycin-resistant variants. Twelve additional S. aureus strains isolated from the blood of patients with endocarditis were tested in vitro against coumermycin with precautions to avoid carry-over of the antibiotic. Coumermycin exhibited a bacteriostatic activity at very low concentrations (MIC, less than 0.004 microgram/ml) but only a weak bactericidal activity (MBC for 90% of strains, 8 micrograms/ml), a finding contrasting with that of others. Furthermore, coumermycin-resistant mutants could be selected in vitro from the 15 S. aureus strains tested. These results indicated no evidence in vivo of a synergistic activity of coumermycin and ciprofloxacin. More importantly, these results suggested that coumermycin might not be adequate for the treatment of serious s. aureus infections in humans.
用香豆霉素A1(以下简称香豆霉素)(三种剂量方案)、环丙沙星或香豆霉素加环丙沙星进行为期5天的治疗,在对大鼠进行实验性主动脉瓣心内膜炎的治疗中进行了测试,该心内膜炎由一株对甲氧西林敏感的金黄色葡萄球菌引起,并与用氯唑西林加庆大霉素进行为期5天的治疗效果进行了比较。虽然香豆霉素在减少赘生物中的细菌数量方面远不如氯唑西林加庆大霉素有效(P小于10(-8)),但环丙沙星与氯唑西林加庆大霉素的效果相同。香豆霉素加环丙沙星不如单独使用环丙沙星有效(P = 0.01)。对于另外两株对甲氧西林敏感的金黄色葡萄球菌菌株引起的心内膜炎,香豆霉素的高剂量方案(每12小时12毫克/千克)疗效同样较低。在香豆霉素治疗期间,大多数赘生物中出现了对香豆霉素耐药的金黄色葡萄球菌变体。在环丙沙星治疗期间,金黄色葡萄球菌对环丙沙星的敏感性未发生变化。在治疗中向香豆霉素中添加环丙沙星并不能阻止对香豆霉素耐药变体的出现。从心内膜炎患者血液中分离出的另外12株金黄色葡萄球菌菌株在体外进行了香豆霉素测试,并采取了预防措施以避免抗生素残留。香豆霉素在极低浓度下(MIC,小于0.004微克/毫升)表现出抑菌活性,但杀菌活性较弱(90%菌株的MBC为8微克/毫升),这一发现与其他研究结果不同。此外,在体外测试的15株金黄色葡萄球菌菌株中可以选择出对香豆霉素耐药的突变体。这些结果表明,在体内没有证据表明香豆霉素和环丙沙星具有协同活性。更重要的是,这些结果表明香豆霉素可能不足以治疗人类严重的金黄色葡萄球菌感染。