Daptomycin and tigecycline have broader effective dose ranges than vancomycin as prophylaxis against a Staphylococcus aureus surgical implant infection in mice
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
Vancomycin is widely used for intravenous prophylaxis against surgical implant infections. However, it is unclear whether alternative antibiotics used to treat methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections are effective as prophylactic agents. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacies of vancomycin, daptomycin, and tigecycline as prophylactic therapy against a methicillin-sensitive S. aureus (MSSA) or MRSA surgical implant infection in mice. MSSA or MRSA was inoculated into the knee joints of mice in the presence of a surgically placed medical-grade metallic implant. The efficacies of low- versus high-dose vancomycin (10 versus 110 mg/kg), daptomycin (1 versus 10 mg/kg), and tigecycline (1 versus 10 mg/kg) intravenous prophylaxis were compared using in vivo bioluminescence imaging, ex vivo bacterial counts, and biofilm formation. High-dose vancomycin, daptomycin, and tigecycline resulted in similar reductions in bacterial burden and biofilm formation. In contrast, low-dose daptomycin and tigecycline were more effective than low-dose vancomycin against the implant infection. In this mouse model of surgical implant MSSA or MRSA infection, daptomycin and tigecycline prophylaxis were effective over a broader dosage range than vancomycin. Future studies in humans will be required to determine whether these broader effective dose ranges for daptomycin and tigecycline in mice translate to improved efficacy in preventing surgical implant infections in clinical practice. Copyright © 2012, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.
Niska, J., Shahbazian, J., Ramos, R., Pribaz, J., Billi, F., & Francis, K. (2012). Daptomycin and tigecycline have broader effective dose ranges than vancomycin as prophylaxis against a Staphylococcus aureus surgical implant infection in mice. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, 56 (5). http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AAC.06291-11