María García-Castillo, Marta Hernández-García, Adriana Correa, Marco Coppi, Thomas Griener, Thomas Fritsche, Cristina Pitart, Jorge Sampaio, Harald Seifert, Karen Wake, Mandy Wootton, Jordi Vila, Rafael Cantón
{"title":"在一项全球多中心研究（2020-2022 年）中，氧佐沙星对金黄色葡萄球菌和化脓性链球菌临床分离物的体外活性。","authors":"María García-Castillo, Marta Hernández-García, Adriana Correa, Marco Coppi, Thomas Griener, Thomas Fritsche, Cristina Pitart, Jorge Sampaio, Harald Seifert, Karen Wake, Mandy Wootton, Jordi Vila, Rafael Cantón","doi":"10.1093/jacamr/dlae088","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We performed a multicentre study (2020-2022) to compare the <i>in vitro</i> activity of ozenoxacin and comparator agents against <i>Staphylococcus aureus</i> and <i>Streptococcus pyogenes</i> clinical isolates from skin and soft-tissue infections (SSTI).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 1725 isolates (1454 <i>S. aureus</i> and 271 <i>S. pyogenes</i>) were collected in 10 centres from eight countries between January 2020 and December 2022. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was determined (microdilution-SENSITITRE). Results were interpreted following European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) 2023 (clinical breakpoints, ECOFF) and CLSI criteria.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ozenoxacin exhibited high <i>in vitro</i> activity against <i>S. aureus</i> (MIC<sub>50/90</sub> = 0.002/0.12 mg/L) and <i>S. pyogenes</i> (MIC<sub>50/90</sub> = 0.015/0.03 mg/L), inhibiting 99% of the isolates at MIC ≤ 0.5 mg/L and at MIC ≤ 0.06, respectively. The most active comparators against <i>S. aureus</i> were retapamulin (MIC<sub>90</sub> = 0.12 mg/L), fusidic acid (MIC<sub>90</sub> = 0.25 mg/L) and mupirocin (MIC<sub>90</sub> = 0.5 mg/L); and against <i>S. pyogenes</i> were retapamulin (MIC<sub>90</sub> = 0.03 mg/L), clindamycin (MIC<sub>90</sub> = 0.12 mg/L) and mupirocin (MIC<sub>90</sub> = 0.25 mg/L). Ciprofloxacin and methicillin resistant rates for <i>S. aureus</i> were 31.3% (455/1454) and 41% (598/1454), respectively. Additionally, 62% (373/598) of the MRSA were also ciprofloxacin non-susceptible, whereas only 10% (23/271) of the MSSA were ciprofloxacin resistant. Ozenoxacin was more active against ciprofloxacin-susceptible <i>S. aureus</i> than against ciprofloxacin-resistant isolates, and showed a slightly higher MIC in MRSA isolates than in MSSA. However, ozenoxacin activity was comparable in both ciprofloxacin-resistant MSSA and MRSA subsets. On the other hand, ozenoxacin had similar activity in ciprofloxacin-susceptible and resistant <i>S. pyogenes</i> isolates.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Ozenoxacin is a potent antimicrobial agent of topic use against Gram-positive bacteria causing SSTI, including MRSA isolates non-susceptible to ciprofloxacin.</p>","PeriodicalId":14594,"journal":{"name":"JAC-Antimicrobial Resistance","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11170484/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"<i>In vitro</i> activity of ozenoxacin against <i>Staphylococcus aureus</i> and <i>Streptococcus pyogenes</i> clinical isolates recovered in a worldwide multicentre study (2020-2022).\",\"authors\":\"María García-Castillo, Marta Hernández-García, Adriana Correa, Marco Coppi, Thomas Griener, Thomas Fritsche, Cristina Pitart, Jorge Sampaio, Harald Seifert, Karen Wake, Mandy Wootton, Jordi Vila, Rafael Cantón\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jacamr/dlae088\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We performed a multicentre study (2020-2022) to compare the <i>in vitro</i> activity of ozenoxacin and comparator agents against <i>Staphylococcus aureus</i> and <i>Streptococcus pyogenes</i> clinical isolates from skin and soft-tissue infections (SSTI).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 1725 isolates (1454 <i>S. aureus</i> and 271 <i>S. pyogenes</i>) were collected in 10 centres from eight countries between January 2020 and December 2022. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was determined (microdilution-SENSITITRE). Results were interpreted following European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) 2023 (clinical breakpoints, ECOFF) and CLSI criteria.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ozenoxacin exhibited high <i>in vitro</i> activity against <i>S. aureus</i> (MIC<sub>50/90</sub> = 0.002/0.12 mg/L) and <i>S. pyogenes</i> (MIC<sub>50/90</sub> = 0.015/0.03 mg/L), inhibiting 99% of the isolates at MIC ≤ 0.5 mg/L and at MIC ≤ 0.06, respectively. The most active comparators against <i>S. aureus</i> were retapamulin (MIC<sub>90</sub> = 0.12 mg/L), fusidic acid (MIC<sub>90</sub> = 0.25 mg/L) and mupirocin (MIC<sub>90</sub> = 0.5 mg/L); and against <i>S. pyogenes</i> were retapamulin (MIC<sub>90</sub> = 0.03 mg/L), clindamycin (MIC<sub>90</sub> = 0.12 mg/L) and mupirocin (MIC<sub>90</sub> = 0.25 mg/L). Ciprofloxacin and methicillin resistant rates for <i>S. aureus</i> were 31.3% (455/1454) and 41% (598/1454), respectively. Additionally, 62% (373/598) of the MRSA were also ciprofloxacin non-susceptible, whereas only 10% (23/271) of the MSSA were ciprofloxacin resistant. Ozenoxacin was more active against ciprofloxacin-susceptible <i>S. aureus</i> than against ciprofloxacin-resistant isolates, and showed a slightly higher MIC in MRSA isolates than in MSSA. However, ozenoxacin activity was comparable in both ciprofloxacin-resistant MSSA and MRSA subsets. On the other hand, ozenoxacin had similar activity in ciprofloxacin-susceptible and resistant <i>S. pyogenes</i> isolates.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Ozenoxacin is a potent antimicrobial agent of topic use against Gram-positive bacteria causing SSTI, including MRSA isolates non-susceptible to ciprofloxacin.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14594,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JAC-Antimicrobial Resistance\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11170484/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JAC-Antimicrobial Resistance\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jacamr/dlae088\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/6/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INFECTIOUS DISEASES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAC-Antimicrobial Resistance","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jacamr/dlae088","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
In vitro activity of ozenoxacin against Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus pyogenes clinical isolates recovered in a worldwide multicentre study (2020-2022).
Objectives: We performed a multicentre study (2020-2022) to compare the in vitro activity of ozenoxacin and comparator agents against Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus pyogenes clinical isolates from skin and soft-tissue infections (SSTI).
Methods: A total of 1725 isolates (1454 S. aureus and 271 S. pyogenes) were collected in 10 centres from eight countries between January 2020 and December 2022. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was determined (microdilution-SENSITITRE). Results were interpreted following European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) 2023 (clinical breakpoints, ECOFF) and CLSI criteria.
Results: Ozenoxacin exhibited high in vitro activity against S. aureus (MIC50/90 = 0.002/0.12 mg/L) and S. pyogenes (MIC50/90 = 0.015/0.03 mg/L), inhibiting 99% of the isolates at MIC ≤ 0.5 mg/L and at MIC ≤ 0.06, respectively. The most active comparators against S. aureus were retapamulin (MIC90 = 0.12 mg/L), fusidic acid (MIC90 = 0.25 mg/L) and mupirocin (MIC90 = 0.5 mg/L); and against S. pyogenes were retapamulin (MIC90 = 0.03 mg/L), clindamycin (MIC90 = 0.12 mg/L) and mupirocin (MIC90 = 0.25 mg/L). Ciprofloxacin and methicillin resistant rates for S. aureus were 31.3% (455/1454) and 41% (598/1454), respectively. Additionally, 62% (373/598) of the MRSA were also ciprofloxacin non-susceptible, whereas only 10% (23/271) of the MSSA were ciprofloxacin resistant. Ozenoxacin was more active against ciprofloxacin-susceptible S. aureus than against ciprofloxacin-resistant isolates, and showed a slightly higher MIC in MRSA isolates than in MSSA. However, ozenoxacin activity was comparable in both ciprofloxacin-resistant MSSA and MRSA subsets. On the other hand, ozenoxacin had similar activity in ciprofloxacin-susceptible and resistant S. pyogenes isolates.
Conclusions: Ozenoxacin is a potent antimicrobial agent of topic use against Gram-positive bacteria causing SSTI, including MRSA isolates non-susceptible to ciprofloxacin.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
