Pefanis A, Thauvin-Eliopoulos C, Eliopoulos G M, Moellering R C
Department of Medicine, New England Deaconess Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts 02215, USA.
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1993 Mar;37(3):507-11. doi: 10.1128/AAC.37.3.507.
Using a rat model of aortic valve infective endocarditis, we previously found that oxacillin was equally effective against an oxacillin-susceptible strain of Staphylococcus aureus and a beta-lactamase-hyperproducing borderline oxacillin-susceptible strain of S. aureus; also, ampicillin-sulbactam was less effective than oxacillin against both isolates and at low doses was less effective against the borderline-susceptible strain than against the fully oxacillin-susceptible strain (C. Thauvin-Eliopoulos, L. B. Rice, G. M. Eliopoulos, and R. C. Moellering, Jr., Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 34:728-732, 1990). In the present study, we extended this work, using alternative treatment schedules and additional bacterial strains. Extending treatment with low doses of ampicillin-sulbactam (500 and 250 mg/kg of body weight per day, respectively) to 6.5 days resulted in equalization of effectiveness against the previously studied strains BOSSA-1 and OSSA-1 (3.75 +/- 1.61 log10 and 4.71 +/- 1.79 log10 CFU of residual viable bacteria per g, respectively). Against the borderline oxacillin-susceptible strain BOSSA-1, increasing the sulbactam dosage from 500 to 2,000 mg/kg/day while maintaining a fixed dose of ampicillin (1,000 mg/kg/day) by continuous infusion resulted in lower bacterial counts (4.93 +/- 1.84 log10 versus 3.65 +/- 1.26 log10 CFU of residual viable bacteria per g, respectively), but this difference was of only borderline significance; differences in efficacy between the low-dose and high-dose sulbactam regimens were exaggerated when intermittent intravenous administration was used (6.19 +/- 1.90 log10 versus 3.37 +/- 1.41 log10 CFU/g, respectively; P < 0.001). However, for any individual sulbactam dosage, the model of administration (continuous versus intermittent infusion) did not affect the activity of the regimen. When additional strains were used in the model, oxacillin and ampicillin-sulbactam (1,000 plus 2,000 mg/kg/day) were equally effective against both oxacillin-susceptible and borderline oxacillin-resistant strains of S. aureus. These results support the predictions that oxacillin would be clinically effective in the treatment of infections caused by borderline oxacillin-susceptible strains of S. aureus and that, except at very low doses, ampicillin-sulbactam would also be as effective against borderline-susceptible strains as against fully oxacillin-susceptible strains of S. aureus.
利用主动脉瓣感染性心内膜炎大鼠模型,我们先前发现苯唑西林对苯唑西林敏感的金黄色葡萄球菌菌株和产超量β-内酰胺酶的苯唑西林临界敏感金黄色葡萄球菌菌株同样有效;此外,氨苄西林-舒巴坦对这两种分离株的效果均不如苯唑西林,且在低剂量时,对临界敏感菌株的效果比对完全苯唑西林敏感菌株的效果更差(C. 索万 - 埃利奥普洛斯、L. B. 赖斯、G. M. 埃利奥普洛斯和小R. C. 莫勒林,《抗菌药物化疗》34:728 - 732,1990年)。在本研究中,我们采用替代治疗方案并增加细菌菌株扩展了这项工作。将低剂量的氨苄西林-舒巴坦(分别为每天每千克体重500和250毫克)的治疗时间延长至6.5天,使得对先前研究的菌株BOSSA-1和OSSA-1的有效性达到相同水平(每克残留活菌分别为3.75±1.61 log10和4.71±1.79 log10 CFU)。对于临界苯唑西林敏感菌株BOSSA-1,通过持续输注将舒巴坦剂量从500毫克/千克/天增加到2000毫克/千克/天,同时维持固定剂量的氨苄西林(1000毫克/千克/天),导致细菌计数降低(每克残留活菌分别为4.93±1.84 log10和3.65±1.26 log10 CFU),但这种差异仅具有临界显著性;当采用间歇静脉给药时,低剂量和高剂量舒巴坦方案之间的疗效差异被夸大(分别为6.19±1.90 log10和3.37±1.41 log10 CFU/克;P<0.001)。然而,对于任何单个舒巴坦剂量,给药方式(持续输注与间歇输注)并不影响该方案的活性。当在模型中使用其他菌株时,苯唑西林和氨苄西林-舒巴坦(1000加2000毫克/千克/天)对苯唑西林敏感和临界苯唑西林耐药的金黄色葡萄球菌菌株同样有效。这些结果支持以下预测:苯唑西林在临床上对由临界苯唑西林敏感的金黄色葡萄球菌菌株引起的感染有效,并且除了非常低的剂量外,氨苄西林-舒巴坦对临界敏感菌株的效果与对完全苯唑西林敏感的金黄色葡萄球菌菌株的效果相同。