Comparative in vitro activity of Delafloxacin and other antimicrobials against isolates from patients with acute bacterial skin, skin-structure infection and osteomyelitis.

IF 3 4区 医学 Q2 INFECTIOUS DISEASES Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases Pub Date : 2024-09-18 DOI:10.1016/j.bjid.2024.103867
Ághata Cardoso da Silva Ribeiro, Fernanda Fernandes Santos, Tiago Barcelos Valiatti, Michael Henrique Lenzi, Ingrid Nayara Marcelino Santos, Raíssa Fidelis Baêta Neves, Ikechukwu Benjamin Moses, Jaqueline Pilon de Meneses, Renata Gebara de Grande Di Sessa, Mauro José Salles, Ana Cristina Gales
{"title":"Comparative in vitro activity of Delafloxacin and other antimicrobials against isolates from patients with acute bacterial skin, skin-structure infection and osteomyelitis.","authors":"Ághata Cardoso da Silva Ribeiro, Fernanda Fernandes Santos, Tiago Barcelos Valiatti, Michael Henrique Lenzi, Ingrid Nayara Marcelino Santos, Raíssa Fidelis Baêta Neves, Ikechukwu Benjamin Moses, Jaqueline Pilon de Meneses, Renata Gebara de Grande Di Sessa, Mauro José Salles, Ana Cristina Gales","doi":"10.1016/j.bjid.2024.103867","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The aim of this study was to compare the in vitro activity of delafloxacin with other fluoroquinolones against bacterial pathogens recovered from inpatients with osteomyelitis, Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin-Structure Infections (ABSSSI). In total, 100 bacterial isolates (58 % Gram-negative and 42 % Gram-positive) recovered from inpatients between January and April 2021, were reidentified at species level by MALDI-TOF MS. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was conducted using the broth microdilution method and the detection of biofilm formation was assessed through the microtiter plate assay. The screening for mecA was carried out by PCR, while mutations in the Quinolone Resistance Determining Regions (QRDR), specifically gyrA and parC, were analyzed using PCR followed by Sanger sequencing. Results showed that delafloxacin exhibited greater in vitro potency (at least 64-times) than the other tested fluoroquinolones (levofloxacin and ciprofloxacin) when evaluating Staphylococcus aureus (MIC<sub>50</sub> ≤0.008 mg/L) and coagulase-negative Staphylococcus (MIC<sub>50</sub> 0.06 mg/L). Furthermore, delafloxacin (MIC<sub>50</sub> 0.25 mg/L) was at least 4 times more potent than other tested fluoroquinolones (MIC<sub>50</sub> 1 mg/L) against P. aeruginosa. No difference in delafloxacin activity (MIC<sub>50</sub> 0.03 mg/L) was observed against Enterobacter cloacae when compared with ciprofloxacin (MIC<sub>50</sub> 0.03 mg/L). Despite presenting low activity against K. pneumoniae isolates (22.2 %), delafloxacin exhibited twice the activity compared to both levofloxacin and ciprofloxacin. Delafloxacin also exhibited a strong activity (71.4 %‒85.7 %.) against biofilm producing bacterial pathogens tested in this study. Interestingly, 82.14 % of the staphylococci tested in this study harbored mecA gene. In addition, the gyrA and parC genes in fluoroquinolone-resistant Gram-negative isolates displayed different mutations (substitutions and deletions). Herein, we showed that delafloxacin was the most active fluoroquinolone against staphylococci (including MRSA) and P. aeruginosa when compared to other fluoroquinolones such as ciprofloxacin and levofloxacin.</p>","PeriodicalId":56327,"journal":{"name":"Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjid.2024.103867","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the in vitro activity of delafloxacin with other fluoroquinolones against bacterial pathogens recovered from inpatients with osteomyelitis, Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin-Structure Infections (ABSSSI). In total, 100 bacterial isolates (58 % Gram-negative and 42 % Gram-positive) recovered from inpatients between January and April 2021, were reidentified at species level by MALDI-TOF MS. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was conducted using the broth microdilution method and the detection of biofilm formation was assessed through the microtiter plate assay. The screening for mecA was carried out by PCR, while mutations in the Quinolone Resistance Determining Regions (QRDR), specifically gyrA and parC, were analyzed using PCR followed by Sanger sequencing. Results showed that delafloxacin exhibited greater in vitro potency (at least 64-times) than the other tested fluoroquinolones (levofloxacin and ciprofloxacin) when evaluating Staphylococcus aureus (MIC50 ≤0.008 mg/L) and coagulase-negative Staphylococcus (MIC50 0.06 mg/L). Furthermore, delafloxacin (MIC50 0.25 mg/L) was at least 4 times more potent than other tested fluoroquinolones (MIC50 1 mg/L) against P. aeruginosa. No difference in delafloxacin activity (MIC50 0.03 mg/L) was observed against Enterobacter cloacae when compared with ciprofloxacin (MIC50 0.03 mg/L). Despite presenting low activity against K. pneumoniae isolates (22.2 %), delafloxacin exhibited twice the activity compared to both levofloxacin and ciprofloxacin. Delafloxacin also exhibited a strong activity (71.4 %‒85.7 %.) against biofilm producing bacterial pathogens tested in this study. Interestingly, 82.14 % of the staphylococci tested in this study harbored mecA gene. In addition, the gyrA and parC genes in fluoroquinolone-resistant Gram-negative isolates displayed different mutations (substitutions and deletions). Herein, we showed that delafloxacin was the most active fluoroquinolone against staphylococci (including MRSA) and P. aeruginosa when compared to other fluoroquinolones such as ciprofloxacin and levofloxacin.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
德拉氧氟沙星和其他抗菌药物对急性细菌性皮肤、皮肤结构感染和骨髓炎患者分离物的体外活性比较。
本研究旨在比较德拉氧氟沙星与其他氟喹诺酮类药物对从骨髓炎、急性细菌性皮肤和皮肤结构感染(ABSSSI)住院患者中分离出的细菌病原体的体外活性。2021 年 1 月至 4 月期间,从住院病人身上共分离出 100 株细菌(其中 58% 为革兰氏阴性,42% 为革兰氏阳性),并通过 MALDI-TOF MS 重新鉴定了菌种。采用肉汤微稀释法进行抗菌药敏感性测试,并通过微孔板检测法评估生物膜的形成。对 mecA 的筛选是通过 PCR 进行的,而对喹诺酮类药物耐药性决定区(QRDR)的突变,特别是 gyrA 和 parC 的突变,则是通过 PCR 进行分析,然后进行 Sanger 测序。结果表明,在评估金黄色葡萄球菌(MIC50 ≤0.008 mg/L)和凝固酶阴性葡萄球菌(MIC50 0.06 mg/L)时,德拉氧氟沙星的体外效力(至少是其他氟喹诺酮类药物(左氧氟沙星和环丙沙星)的 64 倍)高于其他测试的氟喹诺酮类药物。此外,德拉氧氟沙星(MIC50 0.25 mg/L)对铜绿假单胞菌的作用比其他氟喹诺酮类药物(MIC50 1 mg/L)至少强 4 倍。与环丙沙星(MIC50 0.03 mg/L)相比,德拉氧氟沙星(MIC50 0.03 mg/L)对梭状芽胞杆菌的活性没有差异。尽管对肺炎克氏菌分离物的活性较低(22.2%),但与左氧氟沙星和环丙沙星相比,德拉氧氟沙星的活性是后者的两倍。在这项研究中,地拉沙星对产生生物膜的细菌病原体也表现出很强的活性(71.4%-85.7%)。有趣的是,82.14%的葡萄球菌携带 mecA 基因。此外,耐氟喹诺酮的革兰氏阴性分离株中的 gyrA 和 parC 基因也出现了不同的突变(替换和缺失)。在此,我们发现,与环丙沙星和左氧氟沙星等其他氟喹诺酮类药物相比,德拉氧氟沙星是对葡萄球菌(包括 MRSA)和铜绿假单胞菌最有效的氟喹诺酮类药物。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
925
审稿时长
41 days
期刊介绍: The Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases is the official publication of the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases (SBI). It aims to publish relevant articles in the broadest sense on all aspects of microbiology, infectious diseases and immune response to infectious agents. The BJID is a bimonthly publication and one of the most influential journals in its field in Brazil and Latin America with a high impact factor, since its inception it has garnered a growing share of the publishing market.
期刊最新文献
Emerging threat of Oropouche virus in Brazil: an urgent call for enhanced surveillance and response. Detection of Bartonella henselae DNA in Triatoma sordida collected in peridomiciliary environments. Erythema nodosum as first clinical sign of acute Borrelia burgdorferi infection. Soluble isoforms of the DC-SIGN receptor can increase the dengue virus infection in immature dendritic cells. Mycobacterium leprae and Mycobacterium lepromatosis in small mammals in Midwest Brazil.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1