Enterococcus faecalis (Efc) and Enterococcus faecium (Efm) are frequently resistant to vancomycin and β-lactams (BLs). In vitro data suggest synergy between several BLs and glycopeptides or lipopeptides against resistant pathogens. Our objective was to conduct combination MIC and time–kill experiments to evaluate BL synergy with daptomycin against enterococci. Fifteen Efc and 20 Efm strains were evaluated for daptomycin enhancement via combination MICs. Daptomycin MICs were obtained by microdilution in the absence and presence of ceftaroline, ertapenem, cefepime, ceftriaxone, cefotaxime, cefazolin and ampicillin. Two Efc strains (R6981 and R7808) and one isogenic daptomycin-susceptible/daptomycin-non-susceptible Efm pair (8019/5938) were evaluated in time–kill experiments. Daptomycin at 0.5 × MIC was used in combination with BL at biological free concentration. Strain 5938 was evaluated for enhancement of daptomycin binding in fluorescently labelled daptomycin (BoDipy) experiments. Ceftaroline reduced daptomycin MIC values the most against all strains. In time–kill experiments, ceftaroline, ertapenem, cefepime, ceftriaxone and ampicillin demonstrated synergy with daptomycin against all strains, cefazolin demonstrated none and cefotaxime demonstrated synergy against only R7808. Bacterial reduction at 24 h was greater for daptomycin + ceftaroline, ertapenem, cefepime, ceftriaxone or ampicillin for all strains compared with any single agent or daptomycin + cefazolin or cefotaxime (P < 0.001). In BoDipy daptomycin experiments, ceftaroline enhanced daptomycin binding most compared with all other agents (P < 0.001). The data support the potential use of daptomycin/BL combination therapy in infections caused by VRE. Combination regimens, other than those involving cefazolin and cefotaxime, provide better kill compared with daptomycin alone. Further clinical research involving daptomycin combinations is warranted.

Carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii pose a significant threat to hospitalized patients, as therapeutic options are scarse. Alarmingly, rates of carbapenem-resistance in A. baumannii are on the rise and are slowly becoming a routine phenotype for this organism. This review focuses on infection control strategies for identification and control of A. baumannii, as well the available therapeutic options.

Ceftaroline has been approved for acute bacterial skin infections and community-acquired bacterial pneumonia. Limited clinical experience exists for use outside these indications. The objective of this study was to describe the outcomes of patients treated with ceftaroline for various infections. Retrospective analyses of patients receiving ceftaroline ≥72 h from 2011 to 2013 were included. Clinical and microbiological outcomes were analyzed. Clinical success was defined as resolution of all signs and symptoms of infection with no further need for escalation while on ceftaroline treatment during hospitalization. A total of 527 patients received ceftaroline, and 67% were treated for off-label indications. Twenty-eight percent (148/527) of patients had bacteremia. Most patients (80%) were initiated on ceftaroline after receipt of another antimicrobial, with 48% citing disease progression as a reason for switching. The median duration of ceftaroline treatment was 6 days, with an interquartile range of 4 to 9 days. A total of 327 (62%) patients were culture positive, and the most prevalent pathogen was Staphylococcus aureus , with a frequency of 83% (271/327). Of these patients, 88.9% (241/271) were infected with methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA). Clinically, 88% (426/484) achieved clinical success and hospital mortality was seen in 8% (40/527). While on ceftaroline, adverse events were experienced in 8% (41/527) of the patients and 9% (28/307) were readmitted within 30 days after discharge for the same infection. Patients treated with ceftaroline for both FDA-approved and off-label infections had favorable outcomes. Further research is necessary to further describe the role of ceftaroline in a variety of infections and its impact on patient outcomes.

Introduction Vancomycin (VAN) failures associated with the treatment of complicated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections have been well described. The reported “seesaw effect” demonstrates improved β-lactam activity when VAN and/or daptomycin (DAP) susceptibility decreases. However, there are minimal data comparing ceftaroline (CPT) susceptibility with these agents or teicoplanin (TEI). Therefore, to further explore the seesaw effect, we evaluated the relationship between CPT and VAN, TEI, and DAP susceptibilities. Methods One hundred and fifty clinical MRSA isolates from the Anti-Infective Research Laboratory (Detroit, MI, USA) from 2008 to 2012 were analyzed. VAN, TEI, DAP and CPT minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC) were determined via Etest methodology. MIC₅₀ and MIC₉₀ were calculated for each antibiotic. Additionally, four isogenic strain pairs were randomly selected for evaluation by time–kill methodology for the potential of enhanced killing by CPT as MICs increased to VAN, TEI, and DAP. Results CPT MICs were inversely correlated with VAN, DAP, and TEI MICs with correlation coefficients of −0.535, −0.483, and −0.386, respectively (P ≤ 0.05). Comparison of the MIC relationship for glycopeptides and lipopeptides resulted in a positive correlation for all agent combinations. In time–kill evaluations, CPT demonstrated greater reductions in log₁₀ colony-forming unit (CFU)/mL against mutant strains (3.73 ± 0.67) versus parents (2.79 ± 0.75) despite no change in CPT MIC (P = 0.112). Conclusion This study demonstrated a marked “seesaw effect” whereby CPT displayed increased susceptibility as the VAN, DAP, and TEI MICs increased. Additionally, we observed a positive linear correlation between VAN, DAP, and TEI MICs for all agent combinations. Enhanced activity was noted with CPT in mutant strains versus the parent strains despite no change in MIC. Based upon the enhanced CPT activity observed against strains with decreased susceptibility to VAN, DAP and TEI, CPT may provide an option for infections with reduced susceptibility to glycopeptides or lipopeptides. Further evaluation is warranted to investigate the clinical implications of the seesaw effect.

Tedizolid displays potent activity against Gram-positive pathogens. In vitro studies against clinical isolates of Staphylococcus aureus and enterococci demonstrated improved tedizolid activity over linezolid. However, this is not well-characterized against a large collection of resistant isolates, including vancomycin-intermediate S. aureus (VISA), heterogeneous VISA (hVISA), daptomycin-non-susceptible (DNS) S. aureus, linezolid-resistant (LR) S. aureus and VRE. Therefore, our objective was to determine tedizolid activity versus other agents, against MRSA and VRE with various resistance phenotypes. In total, 302 MRSA (75 DNS, 100 VISA, 120 hVISA and 7 LR) and 220 VRE [100 Enterococcus faecalis (all susceptible to daptomycin and linezolid) and 120 E. faecium (25 DNS and 10 LR)] were evaluated. LR isolates were analysed for the cfr gene. MICs of tedizolid, linezolid, ampicillin, clindamycin, daptomycin, gentamicin, levofloxacin, oxacillin, tigecycline, trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and vancomycin were determined in accordance with CLSI guidelines. Tedizolid MIC₉₀ values for hVISA, VISA and DNS were 0.5 mg/L (versus 4, 4 and 2 mg/L, respectively, for linezolid). The tedizolid MIC range for LR MRSA was 0.063–1 mg/L. Two LR MRSA possessed the cfr gene with tedizolid MICs of 0.125 and 0.25 mg/L (linezolid MICs of 16 and 8 mg/L). The tedizolid MIC₉₀ for vancomycin-resistant E. faecalis and E. faecium was 0.25 and 1 mg/L, respectively; three dilutions lower for E. faecalis and two dilutions lower for E. faecium compared with linezolid. Tedizolid MICs demonstrate activity against isolates with decreased susceptibility to alternative agents, including linezolid. Tedizolid may be a viable treatment option in clinical situations with MDR Gram-positive pathogens.

Objectives Ceftobiprole is a broad-spectrum cephalosporin that demonstrates activity against Staphylococcus aureus resistant to methicillin, including strains with reduced susceptibility to glycopeptides and lipopeptides. The addition of this agent provides a potential therapeutic option for difficult-to-treat infections. Synergy has been demonstrated between β-lactams combined with glycopeptides and lipopeptides against S. aureus. This study sought to determine whether ceftobiprole was synergistic with daptomycin, vancomycin or standard-of-care combination agents (gentamicin or rifampicin) against methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) strains with varying degrees of vancomycin susceptibility. Methods Broth microdilution MICs of ceftobiprole, daptomycin, vancomycin, rifampicin and gentamicin were evaluated for 20 MRSA isolates. Combination MICs were additionally evaluated in the presence of subinhibitory concentrations of ceftobiprole to assess synergism. Time–kill curves for five representative isolates were performed utilizing combinations of ceftobiprole plus daptomycin, vancomycin, rifampicin and gentamicin to further quantify the degree of synergy for each regimen. Results Ceftobiprole plus daptomycin represented the most potent combination with a 4-fold decrease in MIC and synergy against all strains evaluated in time–kill evaluations. Additionally, binding studies demonstrated enhanced daptomycin binding in the presence of subinhibitory concentrations of ceftobiprole. Conclusions The use of combination therapy with ceftobiprole may provide a needed addition for the treatment of Gram-positive infections resistant to daptomycin or vancomycin. Consistent with what has been observed with other β-lactams, ceftobiprole increased bodipy-tagged daptomycin binding on the surface of S. aureus, potentially explaining this potent synergy observed in time–kill evaluations. More detailed evaluation of ceftobiprole is warranted to better characterize observed synergy.