Advertisement

Drugs

, Volume 62, Issue 3, pp 425–441 | Cite as

Treatment Options for Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococcal Infections

  • Peter K. Linden
Review Article

Abstract

Serious infection with vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) usually occurs in patients with significantly compromised host defences and serious comorbidities, and this magnifies the importance of effective antimicrobial treatment. Assessments of antibacterial efficacy against VRE have been hampered by the lack of a comparator treatment arm(s), complex treatment requirements including surgery, and advanced illness-severity associated with a high crude mortality.

Treatment options include available agents which don’t have a specific VRE approval (chloramphenicol, doxycycline, high-dose ampicillin or ampicillin/sulbactam), and nitrofurantoin (for lower urinary tract infection). The role of antimicrobial combinations that have shown in vitro or animal-model in vivo efficacy has yet to be established. Two novel antimicrobial agents (quinupristin/dalfopristin and linezolid) have emerged as approved therapeutic options for vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium on the basis of in vitro susceptibility and clinical efficacy from multicentre, pharmaceutical company-sponsored clinical trials.

Quinupristin/dalfopristin is a streptogramin, which impairs bacterial protein synthesis at both early peptide chain elongation and late peptide chain extrusion steps. It has bacteriostatic activity against vancomycin-resistant E. faecium [minimum concentration to inhibit growth of 90% of isolates (MIC90) = 2 μg/ml] but is not active against Enterococcus faecalis (MIC90= 16μg/ml). In a noncomparative, nonblind, emergency-use programme in patients who were infected with Gram-positive isolates resistant or refractory to conventional therapy or who were intolerant of conventional therapy, quinupristin/dalfopristin was administered at 7.5 mg/kg every 8 hours. The clinical response rate in the bacteriologically evaluable subset was 70.5%, and a 65.8% overall response (favourable clinical and bacteriological outcome) was observed. Resistance to quinupristin/dalfopristin on therapy was observed in 6/338 (1.8%) of VRE strains. Myalgia/arthralgia was the most frequent treatment-limiting adverse effect. In vitro studies which combine quinupristin/dalfopristin with ampicillin or doxycyline have shown enhanced killing effects against VRE; however, the clinical use of combined therapy remains unestablished.

Linezolid, an oxazolidinone compound that acts by inhibiting the bacterial pre-translational initiation complex formation, has bacteriostatic activity against both vancomycin resistant E. faecium (MIC90 = 2 to 4 μg/ml) and E. faecalis (MIC90 = 2 to 4 μg/ml). This agent was studied in a similar emergency use protocol for multi-resistant Gram-positive infections. 55 of 133 evaluable patients were infected with VRE. Cure rates for the most common sites were complicated skin and soft tissue 87.5% (7/8), primary bacteraemia 90.9% (10/11), peritonitis 91.7% (11/12), other abdominal/pelvic infections 91.7% (11/12), and catheter-related bacteraemia 100% (9/9). There was an all-site response rate of 92.6% (50/54).

In a separate blinded, randomised, multicentre trial for VRE infection at a variety of sites, intravenous low dose linezolid (200mg every 12 hours) was compared to high dose therapy (600mg every 12 hours) with optional conversion to oral administration. A positive dose response (although statistically nonsignificant) was seen with a 67% (39/58) and 52% (24/46) cure rate in the high- and low-dose groups, respectively.

Adverse effects of linezolid therapy have been predominantly gastrointestinal (nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea), headache and taste alteration. Reports of thrombocytopenia appear to be limited to patients receiving somewhat longer courses of treatment (>14 to 21 days). Linezolid resistance (MIC ≥8 μg/ml) has been reported in a small number of E. faecium strains which appears to be secondary to a base-pair mutation in the genome encoding for the bacterial 23S ribosome binding site. At present a comparative study between the two approved agents for VRE (quinuprisin/dalfopristin and linezolid) has not been performed.

Several investigational agents are currently in phase II or III trials for VRE infection. This category includes daptomycin (an acidic lipopeptide), oritavancin (LY-333328; a glycopeptide), and tigilcycline (GAR-936; a novel analogue of minocycline). Finally, strategies to suppress or eradicate the VRE intestinal reservoir have been reported for the combination of oral doxycyline plus bacitracin and oral ramoplanin (a novel glycolipodepsipeptide). If successful, a likely application of such an approach is the reduction of VRE infection during high risk periods in high risk patient groups such as the post-chemotherapy neutropenic nadir or early post-solid abdominal organ transplantation.

Keywords

Minimum Inhibitory Concentration Vancomycin Linezolid Teicoplanin Daptomycin 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

No funding was received to assist in the preparation of this manuscript. Dr Linden has acted as a paid consultant for Adventis Pharmaceuticals, Pharmacia Upjohn, Lilly Pharmaceuticals and Cubist.

References

  1. 1.
    Hoffman SA, Moellering Jr RC. The enterococcus: ‘putting the bug in our ears.’ Ann Intern Med 1987; 106: 757–61Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Murray BE. The life and times of the enterococcus. Clin Microbiol Rev 1990; 3: 46–65PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gold HS, Moellering Jr RC. Antimicrobial drug resistance. New EnglJ Med 1996; 335: 1445–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Edmond MB, Wallace SE, McClish DK, et al. Nosocomial bloodstream infection in United States hospitals: a three-year analysis. Clin Infect Dis 1999; 29: 239–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gaynes R, Edwards J. The National Nosocomial Infection Surveillance (NNIS) System. Nosocomial vancomycin-resistant enterococci in the United States 1989–1995. The first 1000 isolates. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1996; 17: 18Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fridkin SK, Steward CD, Edwards JR, et al. Surveillance of antimicrobial use in United States hospitals: project ICARE Phase 2. Clin Infect Dis 1999; 29: 245–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Linden PK, Manez R, Pasculle AW, et al. Differences in outcome for patients with bacteremia due to vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium or vancomycin-susceptible E. faecium. Clin Infect Dis 1996; 22: 663–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Papanicolaou GA, Meyers BR, Meyers J, et al. Nosocomial infections with vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium in liver transplant recipients: risk factors for acquisition and mortality. Clin Infect Dis 1996; 23: 760–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Newell KA, Millis JM, Arnow PM, et al. Incidence and outcome of infection by vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus following orthotopic liver transplantation. Transplantation 1998; 65: 439–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Montecalvo MA, Horowitz H, Gedris C, et al. Outbreak of vancomycin-, ampicillin-, and aminoglycoside-resistant Enterococcus faecium bacteremia in an adult oncology unit. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1994; 38: 1363–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Edmond MB. Ober JF, Dawson JD, et al. Vancomycin-resistant enterococcal bacteremia: natural history and attributable mortality. Clin Infect Dis 1996; 23: 1234–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lai KK. Treatment of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium infections. Arch Intern Med 1996; 156: 2579–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    LeClercq R, Derlot E, Duval J, et al. Plasmid-mediated resistance to vancomycin and teicoplanin in Enterococcus faecium. N Engl J Med 1988; 319: 157–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Uttley Ahc, Collins CH, Naidoo J, et al. Vancomycin-resistant enterococci. Lancet 1988; I: 57–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Frieden TR, Munsiff SS, Low DE, et al. Emergence of vancomycin-resistant enterococci in New York City. Lancet 1993; 342: 76–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mederski-Samoraj BD, Murray BE. High level resistance to gentamicin in clinical isolates of enterococci. J Infect Dis 1983; 147: 751–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zervos MJ, Kauffman CA, Therasse PM, et al. Nosocomial infection by gentamicin-resistant Streptococcus faecalis: an epidemiologic study. Ann Intern Med 1987; 106: 687–91PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Murray BE. β-Lactamase producing enterococci. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1992; 36: 2355–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Grayson ML, Eliopoulos GM, Wennersten CB, et al. Increasing resistance to ä-lactam antibiotics among clinical isolates of Enterococcus faecium: a 22-year review at one institution. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1991; 35: 2180–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Murray BE. Vancomycin-resistant enterococcal infections. N Engl J Med 2000; 342: 710–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Perichon B, Reynolds P, Couvalin P, et al. VanD-type glycopeptide-resistant Enterococcus faecalis BM 4339. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1997; 41: 2016–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fines M, Perichon B, Reynolds P, et al. Van E, a new type of acquired glycopeptide resistance in Enterococcus faecalis BM 4405. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1999; 43: 2161–4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shlaes DM, Etter L, Gutmann L. Synergistic killing of vancomycin-resistant enterococci of classes A, B, and C by combinations of vancomycin, penicillin, and gentamicin. Antmicrob Agents Chemother 1991; 35: 776–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fraimow HS, Venuti E. Inconsistent bactericidal activity of triple-combination therapy with vancomycin, ampicillin, and gentamicin against vancomycin-resistant, highly ampicillinresistant Enterococcus faecium. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1992; 36: 1563–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hayden MK, Koenig GI, Trenholme GM. Bactericidal activities of antibiotics against vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium blood isolates and synergistic activities of combinations. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1994; 38: 1225–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Unal S, Flokowitsch J, Mullen DL, et al. In vitro synergy and mechanism of interaction between vancomycin and ciprofloxacin against enterococcal isolates. J Antimicrob Chemother 1992; 31: 711–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Landman D, Mobarakai NK, Quale JM. Novel antimicrobial regimens against Enterococcus faecium resistant to ampicillin, vancomycin, and gentamicin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1993; 37: 1904–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Whitman MS, Pitsakis PG, Zausner A, et al. Antibiotic treatment of experimental endocarditis due to vancomycin- and ampicillin-resistant Enterococcus faecium. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1993; 37: 2069–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Brandt CM, Rouse MS, Laue NW, et al. Effective treatment of multidrug-resistant enterococcal experimental endocarditis with combinations of cell wall - active agents. J Infect Dis 1996; 173: 909–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Caron F, Pestel M, Kitzis, M, et al. Comparison of different β-lactam-glycopeptide-gentamicin combinations for an experimental endocarditis caused by a highly β-lactam-resistant and highly glycopeptide-resistant isolate of Enterococcus faecium. J Infect Dis 1995; 171: 106–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mekonen ET, Noskin GA, Hacek DM, et al. Successful treatment of persistent bacteremia due to vancomycin-resistant, ampicillin-resistant Enterococcus faecium. Microb Drug Resist 1995; 1: 249–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mekonen ET, Noskin GA, Hacek DM, et al. Successful treatment of persistent bacteremia due to vancomycin-resistant, ampicillin-resistant Entewcoccus faecium. Microb Drug Resist 1995; 1: 249–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Noskin GA. Vancomycin-resistant enterococci: clinical, microbiologic, and epidemiologic features. J Lab Clin Med 1996; 130: 14–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Dodge RA, Daly JS, Davaro R, et al. High-dose ampicillin plus streptomycin for treatment of a patient with severe infection due to multi-resistant enterococci. Clin Infect Dis 1996; 25: 1269–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Schmidt JL. Efficacy of teicoplanin for enterococcal infections: 63 cases and review. Clin Infect Dis 1992; 15: 302–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Losonsky GA, Wolf A, Schwalbe RS, et al. Successful treatment of meningitis due to multiply resistant Entewcoccus faecium with a combination of intrathecal teicoplanin and intravenous antimicrobial agents. Clin Infect Dis 1994; 19: 163–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Aslangul E, Baptista M, Fantin B, et al. Selection of glycopeptide-resistant mutants of VanB type Entewcoccus faecalis BM4281 in vitro and in experimental endocarditis. J Infect Dis 1997; 175: 598–605PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hayden MK, Trenholme GM, Schultz JE, et al. In vivo development of teicoplanin resistance in a VanB Entewcoccus faecalis. J Infect Dis 1993; 167: 1224–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Van der Auwera P, Pensart N, Korten V, et al. Influence of oral glycopeptides on the fecal flora of human volunteers: selection of highly glycopeptide-resistant enterococci. J Infect Dis 1996; 173: 1129–36PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Donskey CJ, Chowdhry TK, Hecker MT, et al. Effect of antibiotic therapy on the density of vancomycin-resistant enterococci in the stool of colonized patients. N Engl J Med 2000; 28: 1961–3Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Carmeli Y, Samore MH, Huskins CW. The association between antecedent vancomycin treatment and hospital-acquired vancomycin-resistant enterococi: a meta-analysis. Arch Intern Med 1999; 159: 2461–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Norris AH, Reilly JP, Edelstein PH, et al. Chloramphenicol for the treatment of vancomycin-resistant enterococcal infections. Clin Infect Dis 1995; 20: 1137–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Lautenbach E, Schuster MG, Biler WB, et al. The role of chloramphenicol in the treatment of bloodstream infection due to vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus. Clin Infect Dis 1998; 27: 1259–65PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Perez Mato S, Robinson S, Begue RE. Vancomycin-resistant Entewcoccus faecium meningitis successfully treated with chloramphenicol. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1999; 18: 483–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Howe RA, Robson M, Oakhill A, et al. Successful use of tetracycline as therapy of an immunocompromised patient with septicaemia caused by a vancomycin-resistant Entewcoccus. J Antimicrob Chemother 1997; 40: 144–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Grandsen WR, King A, Marossy D, et al. Quinupristin/dalfopristin in neonatal Entewcoccus faecium meningitis. Arch Dis Child 1998; 68: F235–6 (letter)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Linden P, Pasculle AW, Manez R, et al. Utilization of novobiocin and ciprofloxacin for the treatment of serious infection due to vancomycin-resistant Entewcccus faecium. In: Program and Abstracts of the Thirty-third Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, New Orleans (LA); 1993. Abstract 1027, p.307. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Montecalvo MA, Horowitz H, Wormser GP, et al. Effect of novobiocin-containing antimicrobial regimens on infection and colonization with vancomycin-resistant Entewcoccus faecium. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1995; 39: 794PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Linden P, Coley K, Kusne S. Bacteriologic efficacy of nitrofurantoin for the treatment of urinary tract infection due to vancomycin-resistant Entercoccus faecium [abstract]. Clin Infect Dis 1999; 29: 999Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Taylor SE, Paterson DL, Yu VL. Treatment options for chronic prostatitis due to vancomycin-resistant Entewcoccus faecium. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1998; 17: 798–800PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Moellering RC, Linden PK, Reinhardt J, et al. The efficacy and safety of quinupristin/dalfopristin for the treatment of infections caused by vancomycin-resistant ntewcoccus faecium. J Antimicrob Chemother 1999; 44: 251–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Linden P, Pasculle AW, McDevitt D, et al. Effect of quinupristin/dalfopristin on the outcome of vancomycin-resistant Entewcoccus faecium bacteremia: comparison with a control cohort. J Antimicrob Chemother 1997; 39 (Suppl. A): 145–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Winston DJ, Emmanouilides C, Kroeber A, et al. Quinupristin-dalfopristin for infections due to vancomycin-resistant Entewcoccus faecium. Clin Infect Dis 2000; 30: 790–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Hartman CS, Leach TS, Kaja RW, et al. Linezolid in the treatment of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus: A dose comparative, multicenter phase III trial. In: proceedings of 40th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, Toronto, Canada; 2000 Sep 17–20. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, D.C. Abstract no. 2235Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Leach TS, Schaser R, Todd WM, et al. Clinical efficacy of linezolid for infections caused by vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) in a compassionate use program [abstract no. 66]. Clin Infect Dis 2000; 31: 224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Investigator brochure. Syercid (quinupristin/dalfopristin). Rhone-Poulenc Rorer. Collegeville (PA): 1997 AprGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Beyer D, Pepper K. The streptogramin antibiotics: update on their mechanism of action. Expert Opin Invest Drug 1998; 7: 591–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Aumercier M, Bouhallab S, Capmau M-L, et al. RP 59500: a proposed mechanism for its bactericidal activity. J Antimicrob Chemother 1992; 30 Suppl. A: 9–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Jones RN, Ballow CH, Biedenbach B, et al. Quinupristin/dalfopristin antimicrobial activity of quinupristin-dalfopristin (RP 59500, Synercid) tested against over 28,000 recent clinical isolates from 200 medical centers in the United States and Canada. Diagno Microbiol Infect Dis 1998; 31: 437–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Dowzicky M, Nadler HL, Feber C, et al. Evaluation of in vitro activity of quinpristin/dalfopristin and comparator antimicrobial agents against worldwide clinical trial and other laboratory isolates. Am J Med 104; Suppl. 5A: 34S–42SGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Johnson CA, Taylor III CA, Zimmerman SW, et al. Pharmacokinetics of quinupristin-dalfopristin in continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1999; 43: 152–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Pankuch GA, Jacobs MR, Appelbaum PC. Post-antibiotic effect and post-antibiotic sub-MIC effect of quinupristin-dalfopristin against Gram-positive and - negative organisms. Antmicrob Agents Chemother 1998; 42: 3028–31Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Aeschlimann JR, Rybak MJ. Pharmacodynamic analysis of the activity of quinupristin-dalfopristin against vancomycin-resistant Entewcoccus faecium with differing MBCs via time-kill curve and postantibiotic effect methods. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1998; 42: 2188–92PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Collins LA, Malanoski GJ, Eliopoulos GM, et al. In vitro activity of RP 59500, an injectable streptogramin antibiotic, against vancomycin-resistant Gram-positive organisms. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1993; 37: 598–601PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Williams JD, Maskell JP, Whiley AC, et al. Comparative in vitro activity of quinupristin/dalfoprostin against Enterococcus spp. J Antimicrob Chemother 1997; 39: Suppl. A: 41–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Caron F, Gold HS, Wennersten CB, et al. Influence of erythromycin resistance, inoculum growth phase, and incubation time on assessment of the bactericidal activity of RP 59500 (quinupristin-dalfopristin) against vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1997; 41: 2749–53PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Lynn WA, Clutterbuck E, Want SM, et al. Treatment of CAPD-peritonitis due to glycopeptide-resistant Enterococcus faecium with quinupristin/dalfopristin. Lancet 1994; 344: 1025PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Furlong WB, Rakowski TA. Therapy with RP 59500 (quinupristin/dalfopristin) for prosthetic valve endocarditis due to enterococci with VanA/VanB resistance patterns. Clin Infect Dis 1997;25: 163–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Sahgal VS, Urban C, Mariano N, et al. Quinupristin/dalfopristin (RP 59500) therapy for vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium aortic graft infection: Case report. Microbiol Drug Resistance. 1995; 1: 245–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Nachmann SA, Verma R, Egnor M. Vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium. Shunt infection in an infant: an antibiotic cure. Microbiol Drug Resistance 1995; 1: 95–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Werner G, Klare I, Witte W. Association between quinpristin/dalfopristin resistance in glycopeptide-resistant Enterococcus faecium and the use of additives in animal feed. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1998; 17: 401–2PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Chow JW, Davidson A, Sanford E, et al. Superinfection with Enterococcus faecalis during quinupristin/dalfopristin therapy. Clin Infect Dis 1997; 24: 91–2PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Matsurmura SO, Louie L, Louie M, et al. Synergy testing of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium against quinupristin/dalfopristin in combination with other antimicrobial agents. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1999; 43: 2776–9Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Aeischlmann JR, Zervos MJ, Rybak MJ. Treatment of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium with RP 59500 (quinupristin-dalfopristin) administered by intermittent or continuous infusion, alone or in combination with doxycycline, in an in vitro pharmacodynamic infection model with simulated endocardial vegetation. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1998; 42: 2710–7Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Matsumura S, Simor AE. Treatment of endocarditis due to vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium with quinupristin/dalfopristin, doxycycline, and rifampin: a synergistic drug combination. Clin Infect Dis 1998; 27: 1554–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Talbot GH, Zhu GR. Characterization of arthralgias/myalgias associated with quinupristin/dalfopristin (Synercid) [abstract]. Clin Infect Dis 1998; 27: 965Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Olsen K, Rebuck J, Rupp M. Arthralgias and myalgias related to quinupristin-dalfopristin administration. Clin Infect Dis 2001;32: E83–E86PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Linden P, Talbot G, Bompart F. Liver histopathology in liver transplant recipients with hyperbilirubinemia during quinupristin/dalfopristin therapy. 4th International Conference in the Macrolides, Azalides, Streptogramins and Ketolides. Barcelona, Spain; 1998 Jan 21–23Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Nichols RL, Graham DR, Barriere SL, et al. Treatment of hospitalized patients with complicated Gram-positive skin and skin structure infections: two randomized, multicentre studies of quinupristin/dalfopristin versus cefazolin, oxacillin or vancomycin. J Antimicrob Chemother 1999; 44: 263–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    van den Bogaard AE, Stobberingh EE. Antibiotic usage in animals: impact on bacterial resistance and public health. Drugs 1999; 58(4): 589–607PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Descheemaeker PR, Chapelle S, Devriese LA, et al. Comparison of glycopeptide-resistant Enterococcus faecium isolates and glycopeptide resistance genes of human and animal origins. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1999; 43: 2032–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Kirk M, Hill RL, Casewell MW, et al. Isolation of vancomycin-resistant enterococci from supermarket poultry. Adv Exp Med Biol 1997; 48: 289–91Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Klare I, Heier H, Claus H, et al. vanA-mediated high-level glycopeptide resistance in Enterococcus faecium from animal husbandry. FEMS Microbiol Lett 1995; 125: 165–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Brickner SJ. Oxazolidinone antibacterial agents. Curr Pharmaceutical Design. 1996; 41: 2132–6Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Shinabarger DL, Marotti KR, Murray RW, et al. Mechanism of action of oxazolidinones: effects of linezolid and eperzolid on translation reactions. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1997; 41: 2132–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Zyvox (linezolid) package insert. Kalamazoo (MI): Pharmacia & Upjohn: 2000 AprGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Noskin GA, Siddiqul F, Stosor V, et al. In vitro activities of linezolid against important gram-positive bacterial pathogens including vancomycin-resistant enterococci. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1999; 43: 2059–62PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Patel R, Rouse MS, Piper KE, et al. In vitro activity of linezolid against vancomycin-resistant enterococci, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and penicillin-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae. Diag Microbiol Infect Dis 1999; 34: 119–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Rybak MJ, Cappellety DM, Moldovan T, et al. Comparative in vitro activities and postantibiotic effects of the oxazolidinone compounds eperzolid (PNU-100766) versus vancomycin against Staphyiococcus aaureus, cogulase-negative staphylococci, Enterococcusfaecalis, and Enterococcus faecium. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2000; 44: 1062–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Wise R, Andrews JM, Boswell FJ, et al. The in-vitro activity of linezolid (U-100766) and tentative breakpoints. J Antimicrob Chemother 1998; 42: 721–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Wienkers LC, Wynalda MA, Feenstra KL, et al. In vitro metabolism of linezolid (PNU-100766); lack of induction or inhibition of cytochrome P450 enzymes and studies on the mechanism of formation of the major human metabolite, PNU-142586. In: proceedings of the 39th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Therapy and Chemotherapy. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, D.C.; 1999. Abstract no. 17Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Feenstra KL, Slatter JG, Stalker DJ, et al. Metabolism and excretion of the oxazolidinone antibiotic linezolid (PNU-100766) following oral administration of 14C PNU-100766 to healthy volunteers. In: proceedings of the 38th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy; American Society for Microbiology, Washington, D.C.; 1998. Abstract A-53Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Brier ME, Stalker DJ, Arnoff GR, et al. Pharmacokinetics of linezolid in subjects with varying degrees of renal function and on dialysis. In: proceedings of 38th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, D.C.; 1998. Abstract no. A-54Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Green SL, Maddox JC, Huttenbach ED. Linezolid and reversible myelosuppression. JAMA 2001; 285: 1291–2PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    McNeil SA, Clark NM, Chandrasekar PH, et al. Successful treatment of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium bacteremia with linezolid after failure of treatment with synercid (quinupristin/dalfopristin). Clin Infect Dis 2000; 30: 403–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Noskin GA, Siddiqui F, Stosor V, et al. Successful treatment of persistent vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium bacteremia with linezolid and gentamicin. Clin Infect Dis 1999; 28: 689–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Linden P, Parkinson D, Kramer DJ, et al. Treatment of vanocmycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium infection in liver recipients with the investigational antimicrobial, linezolid. [abstract no. 381]. Clin Infect Dis 2000; 31: 278Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Linden P, Parkinson D, Pasculle AW, et al. Isolation of a vancomycin-resistant enterococcal strain with reduced susceptibility to linezolid. In: program and Abstracts of 39th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, D.C.; 1999. Abstract no. 1105Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Zurenko GE, Todd WM, Hafkin B, et al. Development of linezolid-resistant Enterococcus faecium in two compassionate use program patients treated with linezolid. In: program and Abstracts of 39th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, American Society for Microbiology, Washington, D.C.; 1999: 118. Abstract no. 848Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Gonzales RD, Schreckenberger PC, Graham MB, et al. Infections due to vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium resistant to linezolid. Lancet 2001; 357: 1179PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Snydman DR, Jacobus NV, McDermott LA, et al. Comparative in vitro activities of daptomycin and vancomycin against resistant gram-positive pathogens. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2000; 44: 3447–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Barry AL, Fuchs PC, Brown SD. In vitro activities of daptomycin against 2,789 clinical isolates in 11 North American medical centers. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2001; 45: 1919–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Snydman DR. Daptomycin. Proceedings of 40th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. Toronto, Canada; 2000 Sep. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, D.C. Abstract no. 1125Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Chambers HF. Daptomycin/LY333328/evernimicin. Session S 134. Presentation at the 37th Annual Meeting of the Infectious Disease Society of America; 1999 Nov 18–21: Philadelphia (PA)Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Harlend S, Tebbs SE, Elliot TS. Evaluation of the in vitro activity of the glycopeptide antibiotic LY 333328 in comparison with vancomycin and teicoplanin. J Antimicrob Chemother 1998; 41: 273–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Zeckel ML, Preston DA, Allen BS. In vitro activities of LY333328 and comparative agents against nosocomial grampositive pathogens collected in a 1997 global surveillance study. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2000; 44: 1370–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Schwalbe RS, Mclntosh AC, Qaiyumi S, et al. In vitro activity of LY333328, an investigational glycopeptide antibiotic, against enterococci and staphylococci. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1997; 40: 2416–9Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    Moellering Jr RC. New narrow spectrum agents for the treatment of infections caused by gram-positives. 38th Annual Meeting of the Infectious Diseases Society of America; 2000 Sep 7–10: New Orleans (LA). Abstract S80Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Gales AC, Jones RN. Antimicrobial activity and spectrum of the new glycylcycline, GAR-936 tested against 1,203 recent clinical bacterial isolates. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2000; 36: 19–36PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Herwaldt LA. Reduction of Staphylococcus aureus nasal carriage and infection in dialysis patients. J Hosp Inf 1998; 40 Suppl. B: S13–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Kluytmans JA, Mouton JW, Vanden Bergh MF, et al. Reduction of surgical-site infections in cardiothoracic surgery by elimination of nasal carriage of Staphylococcusaureus. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1996; 17: 780–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Harbarth S, Dharan S, Liassine N, et al. Randomized, placebocontrolled, double-blind trial to evaluate the efficacy of mupirocin for eradicating carriage of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1999; 43: 1412–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Montecalvo MA, Shay DK, Gedris C, et al. A semiquantitative analysis of the fecal flora of patients with vancomycin-resistant enterococci: colonized patients pose an infection control risk. Clin Infect Dis 1997; 25: 929–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Beezhold DW, Slaughter S, Hayden MK, et al. Skin colonization with vancomycin-resistant enterococci among hospitalized patients with bacteremia. Clin Infect Dis 1997; 24: 704–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Roghmann MC, Qaiyumi S, Johnson JA, et al. Recurrent vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium bacteremia in a leukemia patients who was persistently colonized with vancomycin-resistant enterococci for two years. Clin Infect Dis 1997; 24: 514–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    O’Donovan CA, Fan-Havard P, Tecson-Tumang FT, et al. Enteric eradication of vancomycin-resistant fnterococcus faecium with oral bacitracin. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 1994; 18: 105–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Chia JKS, Nakata MM, Park SS, et al. Use of bacitracin therapy for infection due to vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium. Clin Infect Dis 1995; 21: 1520PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Weinstein MR, Dedier H, Brunton J, et al. Lack of efficacy of oral bacitracin plus doxycycline for the eradication of stool colonization with vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium. Clin Infect Dis 1999; 29: 361–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Reynolds P, Sommer E. Comparison of the target sites and mechanism of action of glycopeptides and lipoglyco-depsipeptide antibiotics. Drugs Exp Clin Res 1990; 16: 335–89Google Scholar
  120. 120.
    Rolston KV, Dholakia N, Ho DH, et al. In vitro activity of ramoplanin (a novel lipoglycopeptide), vancomycin, and teicoplanin against gram-positive clinical isolates from cancer patients. J Antimicrob Chemother 1996; 38: 265–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Wong MT, Kauffman CA, Standiford HJ, et al. The safety and efficacy of a novel glycopeptide, ramoplanin, in the decolonization of the gastrointestinal tract of persons colonized with VRE [abstract]. Clin Infect Dis 1999; 29: 968CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Critical Care MedicineUniversity of Pittsburgh Medical CenterPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations