Antibiotic synergy against Staphylococcus aureus: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 4.1 2区 医学 Q2 MICROBIOLOGY
Madeline Mellett, Alexander Lawandi, Chelsea Caya, Todd C Lee, Ahmed Babiker, Jesse Papenburg, Cedric P Yansouni, Matthew P Cheng
{"title":"Antibiotic synergy against <i>Staphylococcus aureus</i>: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Madeline Mellett, Alexander Lawandi, Chelsea Caya, Todd C Lee, Ahmed Babiker, Jesse Papenburg, Cedric P Yansouni, Matthew P Cheng","doi":"10.1128/aac.01199-24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Antimicrobial combinations have been extensively evaluated <i>in vitro</i> to identify synergistic combinations for clinical use. Despite the available literature, no studies comprehensively summarize the findings for antimicrobial combinations against <i>Staphylococcus aureus</i>. We performed a systematic review to identify synergistic combinations that may be beneficial for clinical use against <i>S. aureus</i>. The PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases were queried from inception to February 2024 for studies of <i>in vitro</i> assays evaluating two antimicrobials in combination against isolates of <i>S. aureus</i>. Studies were included if they used common methods to determine synergy including time-kill assays, checkerboard assays, or the combined gradient diffusion method. The proportion of isolates for which synergy was identified was compared for different antimicrobial combinations. Two hundred sixty-five studies were included for analysis. One hundred forty-two studies evaluated synergy against methicillin-resistant <i>S. aureus</i> (MRSA), 31 against methicillin-susceptible <i>S. aureus</i> (MSSA), and 92 assessed synergy against both MRSA and MSSA, or did not define the methicillin susceptibility profile of the isolates studied. Time-kill assays (<i>n</i> = 176) and checkerboard assays (<i>n</i> = 158) were the most frequently used methods, with few studies evaluating synergy using the combined gradient diffusion method (<i>n</i> = 13). The proportion of synergy varied based on the antimicrobial combination and isolate being evaluated. Antimicrobial synergy has been extensively studied for <i>S. aureus</i>, with combinations of glycopeptides and cephalosporins being studied most frequently. Future evaluations of synergy for <i>S. aureus</i> should focus on antimicrobial combinations with strong rationales and robust potential for clinical use.</p>","PeriodicalId":8152,"journal":{"name":"Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy","volume":" ","pages":"e0119924"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1128/aac.01199-24","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MICROBIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Antimicrobial combinations have been extensively evaluated in vitro to identify synergistic combinations for clinical use. Despite the available literature, no studies comprehensively summarize the findings for antimicrobial combinations against Staphylococcus aureus. We performed a systematic review to identify synergistic combinations that may be beneficial for clinical use against S. aureus. The PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases were queried from inception to February 2024 for studies of in vitro assays evaluating two antimicrobials in combination against isolates of S. aureus. Studies were included if they used common methods to determine synergy including time-kill assays, checkerboard assays, or the combined gradient diffusion method. The proportion of isolates for which synergy was identified was compared for different antimicrobial combinations. Two hundred sixty-five studies were included for analysis. One hundred forty-two studies evaluated synergy against methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA), 31 against methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA), and 92 assessed synergy against both MRSA and MSSA, or did not define the methicillin susceptibility profile of the isolates studied. Time-kill assays (n = 176) and checkerboard assays (n = 158) were the most frequently used methods, with few studies evaluating synergy using the combined gradient diffusion method (n = 13). The proportion of synergy varied based on the antimicrobial combination and isolate being evaluated. Antimicrobial synergy has been extensively studied for S. aureus, with combinations of glycopeptides and cephalosporins being studied most frequently. Future evaluations of synergy for S. aureus should focus on antimicrobial combinations with strong rationales and robust potential for clinical use.

抗生素对金黄色葡萄球菌的协同作用:一项系统综述和荟萃分析。
抗菌药物组合已在体外进行了广泛评估,以确定临床使用的协同组合。尽管已有文献,但尚未有研究全面总结抗菌药物联合治疗金黄色葡萄球菌的发现。我们进行了系统回顾,以确定可能有利于临床使用的抗金黄色葡萄球菌的协同组合。从开始到2024年2月,PubMed、Cochrane和Web of Science数据库被查询,以评估两种抗菌剂联合使用对金黄色葡萄球菌分离物的体外检测研究。如果研究采用常用方法来确定协同作用,包括时间杀伤法、棋盘法或联合梯度扩散法,则纳入研究。比较了不同抗菌素组合中鉴定出协同作用的分离株比例。265项研究被纳入分析。142项研究评估了对耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌(MRSA)的协同作用,31项研究评估了对甲氧西林敏感金黄色葡萄球菌(MSSA)的协同作用,92项研究评估了对MRSA和MSSA的协同作用,或者没有确定所研究分离株的甲氧西林敏感性谱。时间杀伤法(n = 176)和棋盘法(n = 158)是最常用的方法,很少有研究使用联合梯度扩散法评估协同作用(n = 13)。协同作用的比例根据所评估的抗菌药物组合和分离物而变化。对金黄色葡萄球菌的抗菌协同作用进行了广泛的研究,其中糖肽和头孢菌素的组合研究最为频繁。今后对金黄色葡萄球菌协同作用的评估应侧重于具有强有力的理由和临床应用潜力的抗菌药物组合。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.00
自引率
8.20%
发文量
762
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (AAC) features interdisciplinary studies that build our understanding of the underlying mechanisms and therapeutic applications of antimicrobial and antiparasitic agents and chemotherapy.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信