Morfín OR, Donis HJ, Arredondo JL, Soriano D, Hermida C, Heredia CJ, Esparza AJ, Rodríguez NE

Idioma: Español
Referencias bibliográficas: 39
Paginas: 55-61
Archivo PDF: 61.35 Kb.

RESUMEN

Antecedentes. La resistencia en bacterias grampositivas es uno de los problemas infecciosos emergentes prioritarios. Esta disminución de la actividad de los antimicrobianos disponibles en la actualidad ha orillado a la búsqueda de nuevas opciones terapéuticas. Linezolid es un anticrobiano nuevo miembro de una nueva clase de compuestos: las oxazolidinonas. Linezolid tiene actividad in vitro contra estafilococos, estreptococos y Enterococci. La actividad incluye a S. aureus resistente a meticilina/oxacilina, S. pneumoniae resistente a penicilina y enterococos resistentes a vancomicina.
Objetivo. Demostrar la actividad in vitro de linezolid y otros antimicrobianos activos contra bacterias grampositivas.
Material y métodos. Para todos los aislados excepto Streptococcus sp, se utilizó la prueba de difusión en disco siguiendo los lineamientos del NCCLS (National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. Performance standards for antimicrobial disk susceptibility test. NCCLS document M2-A6 y M100-58 Villanova, PA). Para determinar la susceptibilidad de los Streptococcus sp se utilizó la prueba E.
Resultados. Los S. aureus (Oxa-S), S. aureus (Oxa-R), Staphylococcus sp (Oxa-s) y los Staphylococcus sp (Oxa-R) fueron susceptibles a linezolid, quinupristina-dalfopristina y vancomicina, algunos Staphylococcus sp (Oxa-R) fueron resistentes a teicoplanina (15%) y a clindamicina (54%).
No se aislaron Enterococci resistentes a glicopéptidos. La mayoría de los E. faecalis fueron resistentes a quinupristina-dalfopristina (89%), el 50% de los E. faecium fueron resistentes a ampicilina y la resistencia a penicilina en S. pneumoniae fue de 45%.
Conclusiones. Linezolid es una de las nuevas y mejores opciones para el tratamiento de infecciones producidas por bacterias grampositivas resistentes.

REFERENCIAS (EN ESTE ARTÍCULO)

1. Moellering RC Jr. Problems with antimicrobial resistance in Gram-positive cocci. Clin Infect Dis 1998;26:p.1177-8.

2. Chadwick PR, Wooster SL. Glycopeptide resistance in Staphylococcus aureus. J Infect 2000;40(3):p.211-7.

3. Lundstrom TS, Sobel JD. Antibiotics for Gram-positive bacterial infections. Vancomycin, teicoplanin, quinupristin/dalfopristin, and linezolid. Infect Dis Clin North Am 2000;14(2):p.463-74.

4. Kaye KS, Fraimow HS, Abrutyn E. Pathogens resistant to antimicrobial agents. Epidemiology, molecular mechanisms, and clinical management. Infect Dis Clin North Am 2000;14(2): p.293-319.

5. Paradisi F, Corti G, Messeri D. Antistaphylococcal (MSSA, MRSA, MSSE, MRSE) antibiotics. Med Clin North Am 2001;85(1): p.1-17.

6. Paradisi F, Corti G, Cinelli R. Streptococcus pneumoniae as an agent of nosocomial infection: treatment in the era of penicillin-resistant strains. Clin Microbiol Infect 2001;7Suppl4:p.34-42.

7. Edmond MB et al. Nosocomial bloodstream infections in United States hospitals: a three-year analysis. Clin Infect Dis 1999;29(2):p.239-44.

8. Moellering RC Jr. A novel antimicrobial agent joins the battle against resistant bacteria. Ann Intern Med 1999;130(2):p.155-7.

9. Zurenko GE et al. Oxazolidinones: a new class of antibacterials. Curr Opin Pharmacol 2001;1(5):p.470-6.

10. Slee AM et al. Oxazolidinones, a new class of synthetic antibacterial agents: in vitro and in vivo activities of DuP 105 and DuP 721. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1987;31(11):p.1791-7.

11. Ford CW et al. In vivo activities of U-100592 and U-100766, novel oxazolidinone antimicrobial agents, against experimental bacterial infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1996;40(6): p.1508-13.

12. Zurenko GE et al. In vitro activities of U-100592 and U-100766, novel oxazolidinone antibacterial agents. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1996;40(4):p.839-45.

13. Rybak MJ et al. Comparative in vitro activities and postantibiotic effects of the oxazolidinone compounds eperezolid (PNU-100592) and linezolid (PNU-100766) versus vancomycin against Staphylococcus aureus, coagulase-negative staphylococci, Enterococcus faecalis, and Enterococcus faecium. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1998;42(3):p.721-4.

14. Jones ME et al. Comparative activities of clinafloxacin, grepafloxacin, levofloxacin, moxifloxacin, ofloxacin, sparfloxacin, and trovafloxacin and nonquinolones linozelid, quinupristin-dalfopristin, gentamicin, and vancomycin against clinical isolates of ciprofloxacin-resistant and -susceptible Staphylococcus aureus strains. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1999;43(2):p.421-3.

15. Shinabarger DL et al. Mechanism of action of oxazolidinones: effects of linezolid and eperezolid on translation reactions. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1997;41(10):p.2132-6.

16. Swaney SM et al. The oxazolidinone linezolid inhibits initiation of protein synthesis in bacteria. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1998;42(12):p.3251-5.

17. Gee T et al. Pharmacokinetics and tissue penetration of linezolid following multiple oral doses. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2001;45(6):p.1843-6.

18. Drago L et al. Effect of linezolid in comparison with that of vancomycin on glycocalix production: in vitro study. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2002;46(2):p.598-9.

19. Noskin GA et al. In vitro activities of linezolid against important Gram-positive bacterial pathogens including vancomycin-resistant enterococci. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1999;43(8):p.2059-62.

20. Goldstein EJ, Citron DM, Merriam CV. Linezolid activity compared to those of selected macrolides and other agents against aerobic and anaerobic pathogens isolated from soft tissue bite infections in humans. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1999;43(6):p.1469-74.

21. Rybak MJ et al. In vitro activities of daptomycin, vancomycin, linezolid, and quinupristin-dalfopristin against Staphylococci and Enterococci, including vancomycin- intermediate and -resistant strains. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2000;44(4): p.1062-6.

22. Betriu C et al. Comparative in vitro activities of linezolid, quinupristin-dalfopristin, moxifloxacin, and trovafloxacin against erythromycin-susceptible and -resistant streptococci. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2000;44(7):p.1838-41.

23. Brown-Elliott BA et al. In vitro activities of linezolid against multiple Nocardia species. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2001;45(4):p.1295-7.

24. Vera-Cabrera L et al. In vitro activity of PNU-100766 (linezolid), a new oxazolidinone antimicrobial, against Nocardia brasiliensis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2001;45(12):p.3629-30.

25. Zaoutis T et al. In vitro activities of linezolid, meropenem, and quinupristin-dalfopristin against group C and G streptococci, including vancomycin-tolerant isolates. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2001;45(7):p.1952-4.

26. Pelaez T et al. In vitro activity of linezolid against Clostridium difficile. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2002;46(5):p.1617-8.

27. Kenny GE, Cartwright FD. Susceptibilities of Mycoplasma hominis, M. pneumoniae, and Ureaplasma urealyticum to GAR-936, dalfopristin, dirithromycin, evernimicin, gatifloxacin, linezolid, moxifloxacin, quinupristin-dalfopristin, and telithromycin compared to their susceptibilities to reference macrolides, tetracyclines, and quinolones. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2001;45(9):p.2604-8.

28. Gikas A et al. In vitro susceptibility of Coxiella burnetii to linezolid in comparison with its susceptibilities to quinolones, doxycycline, and clarithromycin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2001;45(11):p.3276-8.

29. Cynamon MH et al. Activities of several novel oxazolidinones against Mycobacterium tuberculosis in a murine model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1999;43(5):p.1189-91.

30. Wallace RJ Jr. et al. Activities of linezolid against rapidly growing mycobacteria. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2001;45(3):p.764-7.

31. Henwood CJ et al. Susceptibility of Gram-positive cocci from 25 UK hospitals to antimicrobial agents including linezolid. The Linezolid Study Group. J Antimicrob Chemother 2000;46(6): p.931-40.

32. Jones RN, Ballow CH, Biedenbach DJ. Multi-laboratory assessment of the linezolid spectrum of activity using the Kirby-Bauer disk diffusion method: Report of the Zyvox Antimicrobial Potency Study (ZAPS) in the United States. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2001;40(1-2):p.59-66.

33. Cercenado E, Garcia-Garrote F, Bouza E. In vitro activity of linezolid against multiply resistant Gram-positive clinical isolates. J Antimicrob Chemother 2001;47(1):p.77-81.

34. Sader HS, Gales AC, Jones RN. Antimicrobial activity of linezolid against Gram-positive cocci isolated in Brazil. Braz J Infect Dis 2001;5(4):p.171-6.

35. Ballow CH et al. Multicenter Assessment of the Linezolid Spectrum and Activity Using the Disk Diffusion and E test Methods: Report of the Zyvox(R) Antimicrobial Potency Study in Latin America (LA-ZAPS). Braz J Infect Dis 2002;6(3):p.100-109.

36. Biedenbach DJ, Jones RN. Disk diffusion test interpretive criteria and quality control recommendations for testing linezolid (U-100766) and eperezolid (U-100592) with commercially prepared reagents. J Clin Microbiol 1997;35(12):p.3198-202.

37. Karlowsky JA et al. Determining Linezolid’s Baseline in vitro Activity in Canada Using Gram-positive Clinical Isolates Collected prior to Its National Release. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2002;46(6):p.1989-92.

38. Low DE et al. Antimicrobial resistance among clinical isolates of Streptococcus pneumoniae in Canada during 2000. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2002;46(5):p.1295-301.

39. Ballow CH, Jones RN, Biedenbach DJ. A multicenter evaluation of linezolid antimicrobial activity in North America. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2002;43(1):p.75-83.