Skip to main content

Advertisement

  • Research article
  • Open Access
  • Open Peer Review

A study on combination of daptomycin with selected antimicrobial agents: in vitro synergistic effect of MIC value of 1 mg/L against MRSA strains

BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology201920:25

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40360-019-0305-y

  • Received: 26 December 2018
  • Accepted: 23 April 2019
  • Published:
Open Peer Review reports

Abstract

Background

Daptomycin is an important drug used in the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection. A high dose of daptomycin is indicated for an MRSA infection with a minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of 1 mg/L for daptomycin. Combination therapies with daptomycin and other antimicrobial agents, including fosfomycin, display in vitro synergism potentially. This study was conducted to investigate the in vitro synergistic effect of daptomycin-based combination therapy against MRSA strains with high daptomycin MIC.

Method

The synergistic effects of daptomycin in combination with fosfomycin, gentamicin, linezolid, oxacillin, or rifampicin against MRSA with an MIC of 1 mg/L for daptomycin were measured using the microbroth checkerboard assay in vitro.

Result

A total of 100 MRSA isolates was tested. The synergistic interactions of the drugs were evaluated using the fractional inhibitory concentration index. The MIC values revealed that all isolates (100%) were found to be susceptible to linezolid, 85% to fosfomycin, 8% to gentamicin, 69% to rifampicin, and no isolate was susceptible to oxacillin. The in vitro synergism rates of daptomycin in combination with fosfomycin, oxacillin, gentamicin, linezolid, and rifampicin were 37, 11, 5, 3, and 1%, respectively.

Conclusion

The combination of daptomycin plus fosfomycin may be an effective therapeutic option for MRSA infection.

Keywords

  • Combination therapy
  • Daptomycin
  • MRSA
  • Checkerboard assays

Background

For the past few decades, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) continued to be a major human pathogen causing various dangerous infections, such as bacteremia, endocarditis, and abscess, in both community and hospital (nosocomial infection, health-care associated infection or hospital associated infection) settings [1]. The definition of MRSA nosocomial infection was classified “hospital onset”, if culture confirmed to be MRSA isolates was obtained after hospital day 3 with admission being day 1 [2]. In the United States, MRSA contributes to 25.8% of all S. aureus infections and it is associated with approximately 11,000 deaths annually [2]. Its prevalence is particularly higher in Taiwan, as ever more than 80% in intensive care units [3]. Alarmingly, the emergence of multi-drug resistant S. aureus has created an international issue that needs to be solved through new treatment options [4]. Based on the treatment guidelines for MRSA infection, vancomycin remained the mainstay of parenteral therapy. However, daptomycin was considered at least as effective as vancomycin in treating MRSA bacteremia, and high-dose daptomycin in combination with another agent, including gentamicin, rifampicin, linezolid, was suggested to be the option against persistent MRSA bacteremia with vancomycin treatment failures [5]. Hence, combinations of various therapeutic strategies may be effective in improving the clinical outcome of patients with severe staphylococcal diseases [6, 7]. Broadly, the rationale of using combination therapy is as follows: provision of wide-spectrum benefits, acquisition of the synergistic effect, and low risk of emergence of drug-resistant strains [8].

Daptomycin is a cyclic lipopeptide antimicrobial agent produced by Streptomyces roseosporus. This agent targets the bacterial cell membrane via a calcium-dependent pathway, disrupting electrical potential, altering cell membrane permeability, opening ion channels, and eventually causing cell death [9]. This drug is FDA-approved for adult patients with S. aureus infection, including MRSA infection, bloodstream infections, right-sided infective endocarditis, complicated skin and soft tissue infections [5]. Daptomycin kills MRSA more rapidly than glycopeptides. Several studies have reported that daptomycin exhibited a high efficacy against bacteremia caused by MRSA with a high minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) for vancomycin [10]. Generally, daptomycin at 6 mg/kg/day is recommended for bacteremia cause by MRSA [9]; however, several studies have shown that up to 8 mg/kg/day daptomycin is required for patients with difficult-to-treat MRSA infection, including that caused by MRSA with an MIC of 1 mg/L for daptomycin [11, 12]. In such a clinical scenario, co-administration of daptomycin and other antimicrobial agents with synergistic interaction may be an effective therapeutic strategy.

Several in vitro studies using checkerboard methods have shown that combination therapies with daptomycin and other antimicrobials exhibit various degrees of synergism [1315]. Moreover, there is limited information on whether similar synergistic effects are successful against MRSA with a high daptomycin MIC. Hence, in the present study, we aimed to determine the synergistic effects of therapy with daptomycin in combination with fosfomycin, gentamicin, linezolid, oxacillin, or rifampicin by measuring the in vitro antibacterial effects of these combination therapies against MRSA strains with a daptomycin MIC of 1 mg/L using the checkerboard method.

Methods

Bacterial isolates and identification

A total of 1353 MRSA specimens from sterile sites, including blood, cerebrospinal fluid, ascites, and pleural effusion, were isolated consecutively between January 2012 and December 2015 from 14 participating hospitals. These hospitals included 12 medical centers and 2 regional hospitals located in northern (6 hospitals), central (3 hospitals), southern (4 hospitals), and eastern (1 hospital) Taiwan. The present numbers of bacterial isolates enrolled each year was 300. When the total number of collected MRSA isolates reached 300 in each year, the participating hospital would be informed to stop submitting further samples for that year. Duplicate isolates were excluded. All these strains were identified as S. aureus by performing gram staining, catalase-activity test, and coagulase latex agglutination test (automated VITEK-2 system, Biomerieus, France). Methicillin resistance of the cultured S. aureus was determined using agar disk diffusion (Kirby-Bauer), according to the guidelines established by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) [16]. These MRSA isolates were sent to the central laboratory of the National Taiwan University Hospital for preservation, until use in the subsequent microbiological studies. The study was approved by the Ethical Committee of the National Taiwan University Hospital (NTUH-IRB No. 201110043RD).

Antimicrobials and measurement of MIC

The tested antimicrobials were daptomycin (Cubist, Pharmaceuticals, Lexington, MA), fosfomycin (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, USA), gentamicin (Sigma-Aldrich), linezolid (Pfizer, New York, USA), oxacillin (Sigma-Aldrich), and rifampicin (USP; Twinbrook Parkway, Rockville, MD, USA), and they were prepared according to the manufacturers’ instructions. MIC values were determined by broth microdilution in cation-adjusted Mueller-Hinton broth with an inoculum of 5 × 105 CFU/ml in the wells of the microplates. The results were interpreted according to the CLSI guidelines [16]. MIC values represent the lowest drug concentration at which complete inhibition of visible microbial growth is observed. Calcium was added to the growth media containing daptomycin to a final concentration of 50 μg/mL, whereas 25 μg/mL glucose-6-phosphate was added to the medium containing fosfomycin [16]. One hundred MRSA isolates were randomly selected from those with MIC of 1 mg/L to daptomycin using a random digital table for the subsequent experiments. The MIC50 and MIC90 of and the susceptibilities to each tested drug except daptomycin were calculated.

Synergy testing using the checkerboard assay

We used the 2-dimensional microbroth checkerboard method to assess the in vitro effects of combinations of various antimicrobial agents against MRSA strains [17]. The tested antimicrobials were daptomycin in combination with fosfomycin, gentamicin, linezolid, oxacillin, or rifampicin. Each antimicrobial agent in the combinations was four dilutions above and four dilutions below the MIC of every drug. The first antimicrobial agent in the combination was serially diluted 2-fold along the ordinate, whereas the second was diluted along the abscissa. Each well of the microtiter plate contained an inoculum of 5 × 105 CFU/mL that had been incubated for 24 h at 35 °C. The MIC of every antimicrobial agent alone and in combination represented the lowest dilution that completely inhibited the growth of the bacterium. The interaction of the drugs in a combination was expressed quantitatively as a fractional inhibitory concentration (FIC) index (FICI) and calculated for each drug combination using the following equation: FICI = FICA + FICB, where FICA = MIC of drug A in a combination/MIC of drug A alone, and FICB = MIC of drug B in a combination/MIC of drug B alone. The FICI results were interpreted as synergistic (≤0.5), additive (> 0.5 to ≤1), or indifferent (> 1) [17]. FICI results were expressed as percentage.

Results

MIC values, susceptibility rates, and FICI results of the antimicrobials

There were 144 MRSA isolates with MIC of 1 mg/L for daptomycin among the 1353 MRSA isolates. For the 100 randomly selected clinical isolates of MRSA with MIC of 1 mg/L for daptomycin, 57 were from six hospitals in northern Taiwan, 14 from three hospitals in central Taiwan, 25 from four hospitals in southern Taiwan, and 4 from one hospital in eastern Taiwan.

The MIC ranges, MIC50s, MIC90s, and the susceptible rates of the tested antimicrobials for the MRSA strains are listed in Table 1 and the detailed MICs are shown in Additional file 1. All strains (100%) were susceptible to linezolid, 85% to fosfomycin, 8% to gentamicin, 69% to rifampicin, and no strain was susceptible to oxacillin. The MIC50, MIC90, and MICrange values of the antimicrobials are provided in Table 1.
Table 1

MIC values of antimicrobial agents for 100 MRSA strains (daptomycin MIC = 1) and susceptibility rates

 

MIC values (μg/mL)

Susceptibility (%)

MIC50

MIC90

MICrange

Fosfomycin

4

> 128

< 0.5 - > 128

85

Gentamycin

> 256

> 256

0.125 - > 256

8

Linezolid

2

2

0.5–4

100

Oxacillin

> 256

> 256

8 - > 256

0

Rifampicin

0.008

32

< 0.004 - > 64

69

The FICI values of the combination therapies against the MRSA strains are listed in Table 2 and the in vitro antibacterial effects are demonstrated in Fig. 1. The highest synergistic effect (FICI: ≤0.5) was observed for daptomycin in combination with fosfomycin (37%), which was significantly higher than that in the combinations with oxacillin (11%, p < 0.0001), that with gentamicin (5%, p < 0.0001), that with linezolid (3%, p < 0.0001), and that with rifampicin (1%, p < 0.0001). In addition, the additive effect (FICI: > 0.5 to ≤1) in increasing order was 2% for oxacillin, 38% for gentamicin, 44% for fosfomycin, 51% for rifampicin, and 74% for linezolid. The combination of daptomycin and fosfomycin exhibited the highest synergistic/additive effect (81%) against the MRSA strains. A majority (87%) of indifference effect (FICI: > 1) was observed for the daptomycin and oxacillin combination.
Table 2

Interpreted FICI results of antimicrobial agents for 100 MRSA strains (daptomycin MIC = 1)

Combination

Interpreted FICI results, (%)

synergism

additive

indifference

Daptomycin/fosfomycin

37

44

19

Daptomycin/gentamycin

5

38

57

Daptomycin/linezolid

3

74

23

Daptomycin/oxacillin

11

2

87

Daptomycin/rifampicin

1

51

48

Fig. 1
Fig. 1

Daptomycin combined with different kinds of antimicrobial agents demonstrated various results of the in vitro antibacterial effects

Discussion

The development of optimal therapeutic strategies for serious MRSA infections remains of great interest because glycopeptide monotherapy has multiple disadvantages, including varied tissue penetration, slow bacterial killing, and emergence of drug-resistant strains [6]. Daptomycin, which has a rapid bactericidal effect against MRSA, may be an ideal treatment option [11]; however, it needs to be administered at high doses [12] and has poor prognosis [18] for patients with high MIC for daptomycin. Thus, combination therapy with daptomycin might overcome the aforementioned disadvantages. To our knowledge, this is the first in vitro study that evaluated the potential effects of a combination therapy with daptomycin and other antimicrobial agents against MRSA strains with MIC of 1 mg/L for daptomycin. In the present study, combination therapy with daptomycin and fosfomycin had the highest synergistic/additive effects against the 100 MRSA strains.

Fosfomycin, a phosphonic acid derivative first identified in 1969 [19], has a good antibacterial effect against various drug-resistant gram-positive cocci, including MRSA. In clinical settings, it is usually combined with other antimicrobials because an in vitro study has reported the rapid development of resistance to this drug [20]. Several studies have shown the synergistic effects of combination therapy with daptomycin and fosfomycin in vitro and in vivo [21, 22]. Despite limited clinical experience, several patients with MRSA bacteremia have shown successful outcomes via such a therapy [23]. In addition, our findings were supported by those of a similar study, which reported that the in vitro synergistic effect of daptomycin combined with fosfomycin is 100% [15]. The difference in synergistic effects between the previous and present studies may be due to the differences in susceptibility to fosfomycin and MIC for daptomycin. The exact mechanism underlying the synergism is still unclear. However, fosfomycin has a unique inhibitory effect on the early stage of peptidoglycan synthesis by inhibiting the formation of N-acetylmuramic acid, which may increase daptomycin binding because of alteration in the electrical charge of the outer bacterial membrane [24]. Additionally, daptomycin combined with fosfomycin could preserve daptomycin susceptibility against MRSA strains with high MIC, which made maintenance of prior therapeutic dose of daptomycin for MRSA possible clinically. However, further studies need to be conducted to confirm the above-mentioned hypothesis.

Linezolid, the first marketed synthetic oxazolidinone drug, has an inhibitory effect on protein synthesis by affecting the 50S subunit of the bacterial ribosome [25]. It is an FDA-approved drug for skin and soft tissue infection and nosocomial pneumonia caused by MRSA, although the bacteriostatic entity may preclude its clinical use [5]. A study involving the addition of carbapenem to the parent linezolid showed a prominent synergistic effect against MRSA infection [26]. Moreover, the effects of therapy with daptomycin in combination with linezolid have been investigated. Parra-Ruiz et al. [27] reported that a daptomycin/linezolid combination is more effective than a single drug in an in vitro biofilm model. Similar results were observed using a model of simulated endocardial vegetations [28]. However, indifferent and antagonistic interactions between drugs in a combination were shown by Kelesidis et al. [29], whose results were comparable to our findings: a small proportion (3%) of synergism and large proportion (74%) of additive effects. Hence, further studies need to be performed to elucidate the efficacy of daptomycin/linezolid combination against MRSA.

A synergistic effect between beta-lactams and daptomycin against MRSA strains was observed in a previous in vitro study [6]. Several in vitro [13, 30] and animal studies [31], have shown that daptomycin/oxacillin combination has a synergistic effect on most tested strains, and the addition of oxacillin to daptomycin in a case series led to the rapid eradication of MRSA bacteremia [32]. The following are proposed mechanisms that may explain these synergistic effects: a decline in the surface charge of MRSA by oxacillin increases daptomycin membrane binding, death of bacteria [32], and activity of oxacillin-mediated innate host defense peptides against MRSA [33]. However, currently, beta-lactam combination therapy is not suggested in the Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines [5]. In our study, only 11% of the tested MRSA strains were consistent with the synergistic findings, and other strains with indifferent results may have to be further examined in an in vitro study to elucidate this difference.

Co-administration of daptomycin and gentamicin had potential synergistic activities against S. aureus in time-killing analyses, as verified by Debbia et al. [21]. Nevertheless, several in vitro and in vivo studies have reported varied results: some reported synergy [13, 34], whereas others did not [35, 36]. Synergistic interaction of up to 68% was reported by Aktas et al. [15], which contradicts the 5% synergism observed in our study. This distinction may be due to the differences in the bacterial strains used. A previous random control clinical trial for evaluating the efficacy of daptomycin with and without gentamicin against S. aureus infective endocarditis was terminated prematurely after only 24 patients were recruited [6], making the effects of this combination even more inconclusive.

The use of rifampicin as a single agent against MRSA infection is associated with the rapid development of drug resistance [37], and the effectiveness of the rifampicin and daptomycin combination for increasing the clearance of MRSA biofilm has been reported previously [38]. Studies using animal models and retrospective reviews [39, 40] and case reports [41] have also confirmed the synergy and clinical success of daptomycin in combination with rifampicin. Rose et al. [14] showed via checkerboard analysis that the in vitro synergy of this combination was 75%, with 100% predictive value for treatment outcome. However, a similar study [19] showed poor synergism (12%), which is comparable to that observed in our study (1%). Therefore, owing to incomplete clinical data, as no clinical outcome associated with daptomycin combined with rifampicin is demonstrated in our study and probably different epidemiological background of bacterial isolates between our present study and previous ones, the benefits of this combination therapy are unclear.

Our study had certain limitations. First, although the present study showed the synergistic effects of daptomycin in combination with some drugs, the insufficient clinical data limited our interpretation of the correlation between the in vitro studies and treatment outcome. Second, this study was conducted using the population of a single country, Taiwan; thus worldwide generalization should be made carefully. Finally, some antimicrobial agents effectively against MRSA, like ceftaroline (not available in Taiwan when this manuscript was written), were not included for assessment of the in vitro antibacterial effects.

Conclusions

In conclusion, our study showed that daptomycin in combination with fosfomycin had a high synergistic/additive effect against MRSA with an MIC of 1 mg/L for daptomycin. Hence, combination therapy with daptomycin and fosfomycin may be an effective therapeutic strategy for MRSA infection with high MIC for daptomycin as compared to monotherapy. However, further clinical research should be conducted to verify the synergistic mechanism of these antimicrobial agents.

Abbreviations

CFU: 

Colony-forming unit

CLSI: 

Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute

FDA: 

Food and Drug Administration

FICI: 

Fractional inhibitory concentration index

MIC: 

Minimum inhibitory concentration

MRSA: 

Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus

Declarations

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

There were no external or internal sources of specific funding for this paper, and the data were generated as part of the department’s routine work.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Authors’ contributions

YL and JW wrote the article and revised it critically for important intellectual content. PC collected the data and did the analysis and interpretation of data. SC was responsible for the conception and design of the study. JW had given the final approval of the version to be published. All authors had read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was carried out in accordance with the principles stated in the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Ethical Committee of National Taiwan University Hospital (NTUH-IRB No. 201110043RD). The Review Board approved to waive inform consent due to the retrospective study design and the research posing no more than minimal risk.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interest.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Internal Medicine, Fu Jen Catholic University Hospital, Fu Jen Catholic University, New Taipei City, Taiwan
(2)
School of Medicine, College of Medicine, Fu Jen Catholic University, New Taipei City, Taiwan
(3)
Department of Internal Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, 7 Chung-Shan South Road, 100 Taipei, Taiwan
(4)
Institute of Infectious Diseases and Vaccinology, National Health Research Institutes, Tsu-Nan County, Taiwan

References

  1. Lowy FD. Staphylococcus aureus infections. N Engl J Med. 1998;339:520–32.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Dantes R, Mu Y, Belflower R, Aragon D, Dumyati G, Harrison LH, et al. National burden of invasive methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections, United States, 2011. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173:1970–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Wang JT, Lauderdale TL, Lee WS, Huang JH, Wang TH, Chang SC. Impact of active surveillance and contact isolation on transmission of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in intensive care units in an area with high prevalence. J Formos Med Assoc. 2010;109:258–68.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Stefani S, Goglio A. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: related infections and antibiotic resistance. Int J Infect Dis. 2010;14(Suppl 4):S19–22.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Liu C, Bayer A, Cosgrove SE, Daum RS, Fridkin SK, Gorwitz RJ, et al. Clinical practice guidelines by the infectious diseases society of america for the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections in adults and children. Clin Infect Dis. 2011;52:e18–55.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Davis JS, Van Hal S, Tong SY. Combination antibiotic treatment of serious methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections. Semin Respir Crit Care Med. 2015;36:3–16.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen YS. Guidelines for the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infectionsin Taiwan. J Microbiol Immunol Infect. 2013;46:147–50.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. García AB, Candel FJ, Lopez L, Chiarella F, Viñuela-Prieto JM. In vitro ceftaroline combinations against meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. J Med Microbiol. 2016;65:1119–22.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Bayer AS, Schneider T, Sahl HG. Mechanisms of daptomycin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus: role of the cell membrane and cell wall. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2013;1277:139–58.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Moore CL, Osaki-Kiyan P, Haque NZ, Perri MB, Donabedian S, Zervos MJ. Daptomycin versus vancomycin for bloodstream infections due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus with a high vancomycin minimum inhibitory concentration: a case-control study. Clin Infect Dis. 2012;54:51–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Gonzalez-Ruiz A, Seaton RA, Hamed K. Daptomycin: an evidence-based review of its role in the treatment of gram-positive infections. Infect Drug Resist. 2016;15(9):47–58.Google Scholar
  12. Soon RL, Turner SJ, Forrest A, Tsuji BT, Brown J. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic evaluation of the efficacy and safety of daptomycin against Staphylococcus aureus. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2013;42:53–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Snydman DR, McDermott LA, Jacobus NV. Evaluation of in vitro interaction of daptomycin with gentamicin or beta-lactam antibiotics against Staphylococcus aureus and enterococci by FIC index and timed-kill curves. J Chemother. 2005;17:614–21.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Rose WE, Berti AD, Hatch JB, Maki DG. Relationship of in vitro synergy and treatment outcome with daptomycin plus rifampin in patients with invasive methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2013;57:3450–2.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Aktas G, Derbentli S. In vitro activity of daptomycin combinations with rifampicin, gentamicin, fosfomycin and fusidic acid against MRSA strains. J Glob Antimicrob Resist. 2017;10:223–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing: Twenty-eighth informational supplement M100-S20. Wayne: CLSI; 2018.Google Scholar
  17. Pillai SK, Moellering RC Jr, Eliopoulos GM. Antimicrobial combinations. In: Lorian V, editor. Antibiotics in laboratory medicine. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2005. p. 365–73.Google Scholar
  18. Ruiz J, Ramirez P, Concha P, Salavert-Lletí M, Villarreal E, Gordon M, et al. Vancomycin and daptomycin minimum inhibitory concentrations as a predictor of outcome of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia. J Glob Antimicrob Resist. 2018;14:141–4.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Hendlin D, Stapley EO, Jackson M, Wallick H, Miller AK, Wolf FJ, et al. Phosphonomycin, a new antibiotic produced by strains of streptomyces. Science. 1969;166:122–3.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Falagas ME, Roussos N, Gkegkes ID, Rafailidis PI, Karageorgopoulos DE. Fosfomycin for the treatment of infections caused by gram-positive cocci with advanced antimicrobial drug resistance: a review of microbiological, animal and clinical studies. Expert Opin Investig Drugs. 2009;18:921–44.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Debbia E, Pesce A, Schito GC. In vitro activity of LY146032 alone and in combination with other antibiotics against gram-positive bacteria. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1988;32:279–81.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Lingscheid T, Poeppl W, Bernitzky D, Veletzky L, Kussmann M, Plasenzotti R, et al. Daptomycin plus fosfomycin, a synergistic combination in experimental implant-associated osteomyelitis due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in rats. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2015;59:859–63.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Miró JM, Entenza JM, Del Río A, Velasco M, Castañeda X, Garcia de la Mària C, et al. High-dose daptomycin plus fosfomycin is safe and effective in treating methicillin-susceptible and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2012;56:4511–5.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Popovic M, Steinort D, Pillai S, Joukhadar C. Fosfomycin: an old, new friend? Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2010;29:127–42.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. MacGowan AP. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profile of linezolid in healthy volunteers and patients with gram-positive infections. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2003;51(Suppl 2):ii17–25.Google Scholar
  26. Jang HC, Kim SH, Kim KH, Kim CJ, Lee S, Song KH, et al. Salvage treatment for persistent methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: efficacy of linezolid with or without carbapenem. Clin Infect Dis. 2009;49:395–401.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Parra-Ruiz J, Bravo-Molina A, Peña-Monje A, Hernández-Quero J. Activity of linezolid and high-dose daptomycin, alone or in combination, in an in vitro model of Staphylococcus aureus biofilm. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2012;67:2682–5.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Steed ME, Vidaillac C, Rybak MJ. Novel daptomycin combinations against daptomycin-nonsusceptible methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in an in vitro model of simulated endocardial vegetations. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2010;54:5187–92.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Kelesidis T, Humphries R, Ward K, Lewinski MA, Yang OO. Combination therapy with daptomycin, linezolid, and rifampin as treatment option for MRSA meningitis and bacteremia. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2011;71:286–90.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Leonard SN, Rolek KM. Evaluation of the combination of daptomycin and nafcillin against vancomycin-intermediate Staphylococcus aureus. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2013;68:644–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Garrigós C, Murillo O, Lora-Tamayo J, Verdaguer R, Tubau F, Cabellos C, et al. Efficacy of daptomycin-cloxacillin combination in experimental foreign-body infection due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2012;56:3806–11.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Dhand A, Bayer AS, Pogliano J, Yang SJ, Bolaris M, Nizet V, et al. Use of antistaphylococcal beta-lactams to increase daptomycin activity in eradicating persistent bacteremia due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: role of enhanced daptomycin binding. Clin Infect Dis. 2011;53:158–63.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Sakoulas G, Okumura CY, Thienphrapa W, Olson J, Nonejuie P, Dam Q, et al. Nafcillin enhances innate immune-mediated killing of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. J Mol Med (Berl). 2014;92:139–49.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Credito K, Lin G, Appelbaum PC. Activity of daptomycin alone and in combination with rifampin and gentamicin against Staphylococcus aureus assessed by time-kill methodology. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2007;51:1504–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. LaPlante KL, Woodmansee S. Activities of daptomycin and vancomycin alone and in combinationwith rifampin and gentamicin against biofilm-forming methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolates in an experimental model of endocarditis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2009;53:3880–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Rose WE, Leonard SN, Rybak MJ. Evaluation of daptomycin pharmacodynamics and resistance at various dosage regimens against Staphylococcus aureus isolates with reduced susceptibilities to daptomycin in an in vitro pharmacodynamic model with simulated endocardial vegetations. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2008;52:3061–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Perlroth J, Kuo M, Tan J, Bayer AS, Miller LG. Adjunctive use of rifampin for the treatment of Staphylococcus aureus infections: a systematic review of the literature. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168:805–19.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Raad I, Hanna H, Jiang Y, Dvorak T, Reitzel R, Chaiban G, et al. Comparative activities of daptomycin, linezolid, and tigecycline against catheter-related methicillin-resistant staphylococcus bacteremic isolates embedded in biofilm. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2007;51:1656–60.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Saleh-Mghir A, Muller-Serieys C, Dinh A, Massias L, Crémieux AC. Adjunctive rifampin is crucial to optimizing daptomycin efficacy against rabbit prosthetic joint infection due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2011;55:4589–93.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  40. Lora-Tamayo J, Parra-Ruiz J, Rodríguez-Pardo D, Barberán J, Ribera A, Tornero E, et al. High doses of daptomycin (10 mg/kg/d) plus rifampin for the treatment of staphylococcal prosthetic joint infection managed with implant retention: a comparative study. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2014;80:66–71.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Hagiya H, Terasaka T, Kimura K, Satou A, Asano K, Waseda K, et al. Successful treatment of persistent MRSA bacteremia using high-dose daptomycin combined with rifampicin. Intern Med. 2014;53:2159–63.View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2019

Advertisement