Efficacy of trovafloxacin in treatment of experimental staphylococcal or streptococcal endocarditis.

The efficacy of trovafloxacin against Staphylococcus aureus and viridans group streptococci was investigated in vitro and in an experimental model of endocarditis. The MICs at which trovafloxacin and ciprofloxacin inhibited 90% of clinical isolates of such bacteria (MIC90s) were (i) 0.03 and 2 mg/liter, respectively, for 30 ciprofloxacin-susceptible S. aureus isolates, (ii) 32 and 128 mg/liter, respectively, for 20 ciprofloxacin-resistant S. aureus isolates, and (iii) 0.25 and 8 mg/liter, respectively, for 28 viridans group streptococci. Rats with aortic vegetations were infected with either of two ciprofloxacin-susceptible but methicillin-resistant S. aureus strains (strains COL and P8), one penicillin-susceptible Streptococcus sanguis strain, or one penicillin-resistant Streptococcus mitis strain. Rats were treated for 3 or 5 days with doses that resulted in kinetics that simulated those achieved in humans with trovafloxacin (200 mg orally once a day), ciprofloxacin (750 mg orally twice a day), vancomycin (1 g intravenously twice a day), or ceftriaxone (2 g intravenously once a day). Against the staphylococci, the activities of both trovafloxacin and ciprofloxacin were equivalent to that of vancomycin, and treatment of endocarditis with these drugs was successful (P < 0.05). However, ciprofloxacin selected for resistant derivatives in vitro and in vivo, whereas trovafloxacin was 10 to 100 times less prone than ciprofloxacin to select for resistance in vitro and did not select for resistance in vivo. Against the two streptococcal isolates, trovafloxacin significantly (P < 0.05) decreased bacterial counts in the vegetations but was less effective than the control drug, ceftriaxone. Thus, a simulated oral dose of trovafloxacin (200 mg per day) was effective against ciprofloxacin-susceptible staphylococci and was less likely than ciprofloxacin to select for resistance. The simulated oral dose of trovafloxacin also had some activity against streptococcal endocarditis, but optimal treatment of infections caused by such organisms might require higher doses of the drug.

Failure of vancomycin continuous infusion against experimental endocarditis due to vancomycin-intermediate Staphylococcus aureus.

Continuous infusion of vancomycin was evaluated against experimental endocarditis due to heterogeneous vancomycin-intermediate Staphylococcus aureus (hVISA) and VISA. Animals were infected with hVISA PC1 (vancomycin MIC, 2 mg/liter) or VISA PC3 (vancomycin MIC, 8 mg/liter) and treated for 5 days with constant serum levels of 20 or 40 mg/liter. Vancomycin continuous infusion was unsuccessful, as 20 mg/liter was barely active against PC1 (6 of 13 sterile vegetations) and 40 mg/liter failed against PC3 (2 of 9 sterile vegetations).

In vivo synergism of ceftobiprole and vancomycin against experimental endocarditis due to vancomycin-intermediate Staphylococcus aureus.

The efficacy of ceftobiprole combined with vancomycin was tested against two vancomycin-intermediate Staphylococcus aureus (VISA) strains, PC3 and Mu50, in rats with experimental endocarditis. Animals with infected aortic vegetations were treated for 3 days with doses simulating the kinetics after intravenous administration in humans of (i) the standard dose of ceftobiprole of 500 mg every 12 h (b.i.d.) (SD-ceftobiprole), (ii) a low dose of ceftobiprole of 250 mg b.i.d. (LD-ceftobiprole), (iii) a very low dose of ceftobiprole of 125 mg b.i.d. (VLD-ceftobiprole), (iv) SD-vancomycin of 1 g b.i.d., or (v) LD- or VLD-ceftobiprole combined with SD-vancomycin. Low dosages of ceftobiprole were purposely used to highlight positive drug interactions. Treatment with SD-ceftobiprole sterilized 12 of 14 (86%) and 10 of 13 (77%) vegetations infected with PC3 and Mu50, respectively (P < 0.001 versus controls). In comparison, LD-ceftobiprole sterilized 10 of 11 (91%) vegetations infected with PC3 (P < 0.01 versus controls) but only 3 of 12 (25%) vegetations infected with Mu50 (P > 0.05 versus controls). VLD-ceftobiprole and SD-vancomycin alone were ineffective against both strains (≤8% sterile vegetations). In contrast, the combination of VLD-ceftobiprole and SD-vancomycin sterilized 7 of 9 (78%) and 6 of 14 (43%) vegetations infected with PC3 and Mu50, respectively, and the combination of LD-ceftobiprole and SD-vancomycin sterilized 5 of 6 (83%) vegetations infected with Mu50 (P < 0.05 versus controls and monotherapy). Thus, ceftobiprole monotherapy simulating standard therapeutic doses was active against VISA experimental endocarditis. Moreover, subtherapeutic LD- and VLD-ceftobiprole synergized with ineffective vancomycin to restore efficacy. Hence, combining ceftobiprole with vancomycin broadens the therapeutic margin of these two compounds against VISA infections.

Cefotaxime acts synergistically with levofloxacin in experimental meningitis due to penicillin-resistant pneumococci and prevents selection of levofloxacin-resistant mutants in vitro.

Cefotaxime, given in two doses (each 100 mg/kg of body weight), produced a good bactericidal activity (-0.47 Deltalog(10) CFU/ml. h) which was comparable to that of levofloxacin (-0.49 Deltalog(10) CFU/ml. h) against a penicillin-resistant pneumococcal strain WB4 in experimental meningitis. Cefotaxime combined with levofloxacin acted synergistically (-1.04 Deltalog(10) CFU/ml. h). Synergy between cefotaxime and levofloxacin was also demonstrated in vitro in time killing assays and with the checkerboard method for two penicillin-resistant strains (WB4 and KR4). Using in vitro cycling experiments, the addition of cefotaxime in sub-MIC concentrations (one-eighth of the MIC) drastically reduced levofloxacin-induced resistance in the same two strains (64-fold increase of the MIC of levofloxacin after 12 cycles versus 2-fold increase of the MIC of levofloxacin combined with cefotaxime). Mutations detected in the genes encoding topoisomerase IV (parC and parE) and gyrase (gyrA and gyrB) confirmed the levofloxacin-induced resistance in both strains. Addition of cefotaxime in low doses was able to suppress levofloxacin-induced resistance.

Y-688, a new quinolone active against quinolone-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: lack of in vivo efficacy in experimental endocarditis.

Y-688 is a new fluoroquinolone with increased activity against ciprofloxacin-resistant staphylococci. The MICs of Y-688 and other quinolones were determined for 58 isolates of ciprofloxacin-resistant and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). The MICs at which 50% and 90% of bacteria were inhibited were &gt;/=128 and &gt;/=128 mg/liter, respectively, for ciprofloxacin, 16 and 32 mg/liter, respectively, for sparfloxacin, and 0.25 and 1 mg/liter, respectively, for Y-688. This new quinolone was further tested in rats with experimental endocarditis due to either of two isolates of ciprofloxacin-resistant MRSA (namely, P8/128 and CR1). Infected animals were treated for 3 days with ciprofloxacin, vancomycin, or Y-688. Antibiotics were administered through a computerized pump to simulate human-like pharmacokinetics in the serum of rats. The anticipated peak and trough levels of Y-688 were 4 and 1 mg/liter at 0.5 and 12 h, respectively. Treatment with ciprofloxacin was ineffective. Vancomycin significantly decreased vegetation bacterial counts for both organisms (P less, similar 0.05). In contrast, Y-688 only marginally decreased vegetation bacterial counts (P greater, similar 0.05). Moreover, several vegetation that failed Y-688 treatment grew staphylococci for which the MICs of the test antibiotic were increased two to eight times. Y-688 also selected for resistance in vitro, and isolates for which the MICs were increased eight times emerged at a frequency of ca. 10(-8). Thus, in spite of its low MIC for ciprofloxacin-resistant MRSA, Y-688 failed in vivo and its use carried the risk of resistance selection. The fact that ciprofloxacin-resistant staphylococci became rapidly resistant to this potent new drug suggests that the treatment of ciprofloxacin-resistant MRSA with new quinolones might be more problematic than expected.

Parenteral sparfloxacin compared with ceftriaxone in treatment of experimental endocarditis due to penicillin-susceptible and -resistant streptococci.

A new, investigational, parenteral form of sparfloxacin was compared with ceftriaxone in the treatment of experimental endocarditis caused by either of three penicillin-susceptible streptococci or one penicillin-resistant streptococcus. Both drugs have prolonged half-lives in serum, allowing single daily administration to humans. Sparfloxacin had relatively low MICs (0.25 to 0.5 mg/liter) for all four organisms and was also greater than or equal to eight times more effective than the other quinolones against 21 additional streptococcal isolates recovered from patients with bacteremia. Ceftriaxone MICs were 0.032 to 0.064 mg/liter for the penicillin-susceptible strains and 2 mg/liter for the resistant isolate. Both antibiotics resulted in moderate bacterial killing in vitro. Rats with catheter-induced aortic vegetations were inoculated with 10(7) CFU of the test organisms. Antibiotic treatment was started 48 h later and lasted either 3 or 5 days. The drugs were injected at doses which mimicked the kinetics in human serum produced by one intravenous injection of 400 mg of sparfloxacin (i.e., the daily dose expected to be given to human adults) and 2 g of ceftriaxone. Both antibiotics significantly decreased the bacterial densities in the vegetations. However, sparfloxacin was slower than ceftriaxone in its ability to eradicate valvular infection caused by penicillin-susceptible bacteria. While this difference was quite marked after 3 days of therapy, it tended to vanish when treatment was prolonged to 5 days. In contrast, sparfloxacin was very effective against the penicillin-resistant isolate, an organism against which ceftriaxone therapy failed in vivo. No sparfloxacin-resistant mutant was selected during therapy. Thus, in the present experimental setting, this new, investigational, parenteral form of sparfloxacin was effective against severe infections caused by both penicillin-susceptible and penicillin-resistant streptococci.

Ceftriaxone acts synergistically with levofloxacin in experimental meningitis and reduces levofloxacin-induced resistance in penicillin-resistant pneumococci.

Ceftriaxone acted synergistically with levofloxacin in time-killing assays in vitro over 8 h against two penicillin-resistant pneumococcal strains (WB4 and KR4; MIC of penicillin: 4 mg/L). Synergy was confirmed with the chequerboard method, showing FIC indices of 0.25. In the experimental rabbit meningitis model, ceftriaxone (1x 125 mg/kg) was slightly less bactericidal (-0.30 Deltalog(10) cfu/mL(.)h) compared with levofloxacin (-0.45 Deltalog(10) cfu/mL(.)h) against the penicillin-resistant strain WB4. The combination therapy (levofloxacin and ceftriaxone) was significantly superior (-0.64 Deltalog(10) cfu/mL(.)h) to either monotherapy. In cycling experiments in vitro, the addition of ceftriaxone at a sub-MIC concentration (1/16 MIC) reduced levofloxacin-induced resistance in the two strains KR4 and WB4. After 12 cycles with levofloxacin monotherapy, the MIC increased 64-fold in both strains versus a 16-fold increase with the combination (levofloxacin + ceftriaxone 1/16 MIC). In both strains, levofloxacin-induced resistance was confirmed by mutations detected in the genes parC and gyrA, encoding for subunits of topoisomerase IV and gyrase, respectively. The addition of ceftriaxone suppressed mutations in parC but led to a new mutation in parE in both strains.

Linezolid alone or combined with rifampin against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in experimental foreign-body infection.

We investigated the activity of linezolid, alone and in combination with rifampin (rifampicin), against a methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) strain in vitro and in a guinea pig model of foreign-body infection. The MIC, minimal bactericidal concentration (MBC) in logarithmic phase, and MBC in stationary growth phase were 2.5, >20, and >20 microg/ml, respectively, for linezolid; 0.01, 0.08, and 2.5 microg/ml, respectively, for rifampin; and 0.16, 0.63, >20 microg/ml, respectively, for levofloxacin. In time-kill studies, bacterial regrowth and the development of rifampin resistance were observed after 24 h with rifampin alone at 1x or 4x the MIC and were prevented by the addition of linezolid. After the administration of single intraperitoneal doses of 25, 50, and 75 mg/kg of body weight, linezolid peak concentrations of 6.8, 12.7, and 18.1 microg/ml, respectively, were achieved in sterile cage fluid at approximately 3 h. The linezolid concentration remained above the MIC of the test organism for 12 h with all doses. Antimicrobial treatments of animals with cage implant infections were given twice daily for 4 days. Linezolid alone at 25, 50, and 75 mg/kg reduced the planktonic bacteria in cage fluid during treatment by 1.2 to 1.7 log(10) CFU/ml; only linezolid at 75 mg/kg prevented bacterial regrowth 5 days after the end of treatment. Linezolid used in combination with rifampin (12.5 mg/kg) was more effective than linezolid used as monotherapy, reducing the planktonic bacteria by >or=3 log(10) CFU (P < 0.05). Efficacy in the eradication of cage-associated infection was achieved only when linezolid was combined with rifampin, with cure rates being between 50% and 60%, whereas the levofloxacin-rifampin combination demonstrated the highest cure rate (91%) against the strain tested. The linezolid-rifampin combination is a treatment option for implant-associated infections caused by quinolone-resistant MRSA.

Efficacies of moxifloxacin, ciprofloxacin, and vancomycin against experimental endocarditis due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus expressing various degrees of ciprofloxacin resistance.

The new 8-methoxyquinolone moxifloxacin was tested against two ciprofloxacin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus strains (strains P8 and COL) and two ciprofloxacin-resistant derivatives of strain P8 carrying a single grlA mutation (strain P8-4) and double grlA and gyrA mutations (strain P8-128). All strains were resistant to methicillin. The MICs of ciprofloxacin and moxifloxacin were 0.5 and 0.125 mg/liter, respectively, for P8; 0.25 and 0.125 mg/liter, respectively, for COL; 8 and 0.25 mg/liter, respectively, for P8-4; and &gt;or=128 and 2 mg/liter, respectively, for P8-128. In vitro, the rate of spontaneous resistance of P8 and COL was 10(-7) on agar plates containing ciprofloxacin at two times the MIC, whereas it was &lt;or=10(-10) on agar plates containing moxifloxacin at two times the MIC. Rats with experimental aortic endocarditis were treated with doses of drugs that simulate the kinetics in humans: moxifloxacin, 400 mg orally once a day; ciprofloxacin, 750 mg orally twice a day; or vancomycin, 1 g intravenously twice a day. Treatment was started either 12 or 24 h after infection and lasted for 3 days. Moxifloxacin treatment resulted in culture-negative vegetations in a total of 20 of 21 (95%) rats infected with P8, 10 of 11 (91%) rats infected with COL, and 19 of 24 (79%) rats infected with P8-4 (P &lt; 0.05 compared to the results for the controls). In contrast, ciprofloxacin treatment sterilized zero of nine (0%) vegetations infected with first-level resistant mutant P8-4. Vancomycin sterilized only 8 of 15 (53%), 6 of 11 (54%), and 12 of 23 (52%) of the vegetations, respectively. No moxifloxacin-resistant derivative emerged among these organisms. However, moxifloxacin treatment of highly ciprofloxacin-resistant mutant P8-128 failed and selected for variants for which the MIC increased two times in 2 of 10 animals. Thus, while oral moxifloxacin might deserve consideration as treatment for staphylococcal infections in humans, caution related to its use against strains for which MICs are borderline is warranted.

Levofloxacin versus ciprofloxacin, flucloxacillin, or vancomycin for treatment of experimental endocarditis due to methicillin-susceptible or -resistant Staphylococcus aureus.

Levofloxacin is the L isomer of ofloxacin, a racemic mixture in which the L stereochemical form carries the antimicrobial activity. Levofloxacin is more active than former quinolones against gram-positive bacteria, making it potentially useful against such pathogens. In this study, levofloxacin was compared to ciprofloxacin, flucloxacillin, and vancomycin for the treatment of experimental endocarditis due to two methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) and two methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) isolates. The four test organisms were susceptible to ciprofloxacin, the levofloxacin MICs for the organisms were low (0.12 to 0.25 mg/liter), and the organisms were killed in vitro by drug concentrations simulating both the peak and trough levels achieved in human serum (5 and 0.5 mg/liter, respectively) during levofloxacin therapy. Rats with aortic endocarditis were treated for 3 days. Antibiotics were injected with a programmable pump to simulate the kinetics of either levofloxacin (350 mg orally once a day), ciprofloxacin (750 mg orally twice a day), flucloxacillin (2 g intravenously four times a day), or vancomycin (1 g intravenously twice a day). Levofloxacin tended to be superior to ciprofloxacin in therapeutic experiments (P = 0.08). More importantly, levofloxacin did not select for resistance in the animals, in contrast to ciprofloxacin. The lower propensity of levofloxacin than ciprofloxacin to select for quinolone resistance was also clearly demonstrated in vitro. Finally, the effectiveness of this simulation of oral levofloxacin therapy was at least equivalent to that of standard treatment for MSSA or MRSA endocarditis with either flucloxacillin or vancomycin. This is noteworthy, because oral antibiotics are not expected to succeed in the treatment of severe staphylococcal infections. These good results obtained with animals suggest that levofloxacin might deserve consideration for further study in the treatment of infections due to ciprofloxacin-susceptible staphylococci in humans.

RP 59500 prophylaxis of experimental endocarditis due to erythromycin-susceptible and -resistant isogenic pairs of viridans group streptococci.

RP 59500 is a new injectable streptogramin composed of two synergistic components (quinupristin and dalfopristin) which are active against a number of erythromycin-susceptible and -resistant gram-positive bacteria. The following experiments investigate the ability of RP 59500 to prevent experimental endocarditis due to either of two erythromycin-susceptible streptococcal isolates or their constitutively erythromycin-resistant Tn916 delta E transconjugants. RP 59500 had low MICs (0.125 to 0.5 mg/liter) for all four test organisms and was substantially bactericidal in vitro. Rats with catheter-induced aortic vegetations were given single-dose antibiotic prophylaxis 30 to 60 min before bacterial inoculation through a computerized pump system which permitted the simulation of drug kinetics for humans produced by either 7 mg of RP 59500 per kg of body weight or 1 g of vancomycin. Single-dose RP 59500 prophylaxis successfully prevented endocarditis due to both the erythromycin-susceptible parent strains and their erythromycin-resistant derivatives in rats challenged with the minimal inoculum infecting 90% of controls. In addition, RP 59500 also prevented infection in animals challenged with fivefold-larger inocula of the erythromycin-susceptible parent strains. Vancomycin successfully prevented endocarditis due to any of the four test organisms. These results underline the in vivo efficacy of RP 59500 against both erythromycin-susceptible and -resistant streptococci. Such good results against the resistant strains would not be expected with erythromycin or clindamycin, which are the standard macrolidelincosamide-streptogramin antibiotics used for endocarditis prophylaxis in humans. An oral form of RP 59500 which might advantageously replace some of the older prophylactic regimens is currently being developed.

Vancomycin-intermediate Staphylococcus aureus selected during vancomycin therapy of experimental endocarditis are not detected by culture-based diagnostic procedures and persist after treatment arrest.

OBJECTIVES: Laboratory detection of vancomycin-intermediate Staphylococcus aureus (VISA) and their heterogeneous VISA (hVISA) precursors is difficult. Thus, it is possible that vancomycin failures against supposedly vancomycin-susceptible S. aureus are due to undiagnosed VISA or hVISA. We tested this hypothesis in experimental endocarditis.¦METHODS: Rats with aortic valve infection due to the vancomycin-susceptible (MIC 2 mg/L), methicillin-resistant S. aureus M1V2 were treated for 2 days with doses of vancomycin that mimicked the pharmacokinetics seen in humans following intravenous administration of 1 g of the drug every 12 h. Half of the treated animals were killed 8 h after treatment arrest and half 3 days thereafter. Population analyses were done directly on vegetation homogenates or after one subculture in drug-free medium to mimic standard diagnostic procedures.¦RESULTS: Vancomycin cured 14 of 26 animals (54%; P<0.05 versus controls) after 2 days of treatment. When vegetation homogenates were plated directly on vancomycin-containing plates, 6 of 13 rats killed 8 h after treatment arrest had positive cultures, 1 of which harboured hVISA. Likewise, 6 of 13 rats killed 3 days thereafter had positive valve cultures, 5 of which harboured hVISA. However, one subculture of vegetations in drug-free broth was enough to revert all the hVISA phenotypes to the susceptible pattern of the parent. Thus, vancomycin selected for hVISA during therapy of experimental endocarditis due to vancomycin-susceptible S. aureus. These hVISA were associated with vancomycin failure. The hVISA phenotype persisted in vivo, even after vancomycin arrest, but was missed in vitro after a single passage of the vegetation homogenate on drug-free medium.¦CONCLUSIONS: hVISA might escape detection in clinical samples if they are subcultured before susceptibility tests.

Single-dose oral amoxicillin or linezolid for prophylaxis of experimental endocarditis due to vancomycin-susceptible and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecalis.

Endocarditis prophylaxis following genitourinary or gastrointestinal procedures targets Enterococcus faecalis. Prophylaxis recommendations advocate oral amoxicillin (2 g in the United States and 3 g in the United Kingdom) in moderate-risk patients and intravenous amoxicillin (2 g) or vancomycin (1 g) plus gentamicin in high-risk patients. While ampicillin-resistant (or amoxicillin-resistant) E. faecalis is still rare, there is a concern that these regimens might fail against vancomycin-resistant and/or aminoglycoside-resistant isolates. The present study tested oral linezolid as an alternative. Rats with catheter-induced aortic vegetations were given prophylaxis simulating human pharmacokinetics of oral amoxicillin (2- to 3-g single dose), oral linezolid (600 mg, single or multiple oral doses every 12 h), or intravenous vancomycin (1-g single dose). Rats were then inoculated with the minimum inoculum infecting 90% of the animals (90% infective dose [ID(90)]) or with 10 times the ID(90) of the vancomycin-susceptible E. faecalis strain JH2-2 or the vancomycin-resistant (VanA phenotype) E. faecalis strain UCN41. Amoxicillin was also tested with two additional vancomycin-susceptible E. faecalis strains, 309 and 1209. Animals were sacrificed 3 days later. All the tested bacteria were susceptible to amoxicillin and gentamicin. Single-dose amoxicillin provided 100% protection against all four isolates at both the ID(90) and 10 times the ID(90). In contrast, linezolid required up to four consecutive doses to provide full protection against the vancomycin-resistant isolate. Vancomycin protected only against the vancomycin-susceptible strain. The high efficacy of single-dose oral amoxicillin suggests that this regimen could be used for prophylaxis in both moderate-risk and high-risk patients without additional aminoglycosides. Linezolid appears to be less reliable, at least against the vancomycin-resistant strain.

Efficacy of daptomycin in the treatment of experimental endocarditis due to susceptible and multidrug-resistant enterococci.

OBJECTIVES: Daptomycin was tested in vitro and in rats with experimental endocarditis against the ampicillin-susceptible and vancomycin-susceptible Enterococcus faecalis JH2-2, the vancomycin-resistant (VanA type) mutant of strain JH2-2 (strain JH2-2/pIP819), and the ampicillin-resistant and vancomycin-resistant (VanB type) Enterococcus faecium D366. METHODS: Rats with catheter-induced aortic vegetations were treated with doses simulating intravenously kinetics in humans of daptomycin (6 mg/kg every 24 h), amoxicillin (2 g every 6 h), vancomycin (1 g every 12 h) or teicoplanin (12 mg/kg every 12 h). Treatment was started 16 h post-inoculation and continued for 2 days. RESULTS: MICs of daptomycin were 1, 1 and 2 mg/L, respectively, for strains JH2-2, JH2-2/pIP819 and D366. In time-kill studies, daptomycin showed rapid (within 2 h) bactericidal activity against all strains. Daptomycin was highly bound to rat serum proteins (89%). In the presence of 50% rat serum, simulating free concentrations, daptomycin killing was maintained but delayed (6-24 h). In vivo, daptomycin treatment resulted in 10 of 12 (83%), 9 of 11 (82%) and 11 of 12 (91%) culture-negative vegetations in rats infected with strains JH2-2, JH2-2/pIP819 and D366, respectively (P < 0.001 compared to controls). Daptomycin efficacy was comparable to that of amoxicillin and vancomycin for susceptible isolates. Daptomycin, however, was significantly (P < 0.05) more effective than teicoplanin against the glycopeptide-susceptible strain JH2-2 and superior to all comparators against resistant isolates. CONCLUSIONS: These results support the use of the newly proposed daptomycin dose of 6 mg/kg every 24 h for treatment of enterococcal infections in humans.

Efficacy of clarithromycin versus that of clindamycin for single-dose prophylaxis of experimental streptococcal endocarditis.

Clarithromycin is compared with clindamycin for single-dose prophylaxis of streptococcal endocarditis in rats. Human-like kinetics of the two antibiotics prevented endocarditis in animals challenged with both small and large amounts of bacterial inocula. Clarithromycin was marginally superior to clindamycin against small amounts of inocula. Clarithromycin may be considered for endocarditis chemoprophylaxis in human.