Antimicrobial susceptibility and ribotypes of Clostridium difficile isolates from a Phase 2 clinical trial of ridinilazole (SMT19969) and vancomycin

Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy

Volumn 73, Issue 8, 2018, Pages 2078-2084

  Snydman, David R ^a,b   McDermott, Laura A ^a   Thorpe, Cheleste M ^a,b   Chang, Justin ^a   Wick, Jenna ^a   Walk, Seth T ^c   Vickers, Richard J ^d  

^a TUFTS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b TUFTS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d SUMMIT PLC   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CHLORAMPHENICOL; CLINDAMYCIN; FIDAXOMICIN; IMIPENEM; LINEZOLID; METRONIDAZOLE; MOXIFLOXACIN; RIDINILAZOLE; RIFAMPICIN; RIFAXIMIN; SMT 19969; TIGECYCLINE; VANCOMYCIN; ANTIINFECTIVE AGENT; BENZIMIDAZOLE DERIVATIVE; PYRIDINE DERIVATIVE;

AGAR DILUTION; ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE; ARTICLE; BACTERIUM ISOLATE; BACTEROIDES THETAIOTAOMICRON; CAPILLARY ELECTROPHORESIS; CLOSTRIDIUM DIFFICILE INFECTION; COLONY FORMING UNIT; CONTROLLED STUDY; DNA TEMPLATE; DOUBLE BLIND PROCEDURE; FECES ANALYSIS; HUMAN; IMMUNOASSAY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MINIMUM INHIBITORY CONCENTRATION; MULTIPLEX POLYMERASE CHAIN REACTION; NONHUMAN; PEPTOCLOSTRIDIUM DIFFICILE; PHASE 2 CLINICAL TRIAL; PREVALENCE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RECURRENT INFECTION; RIBOTYPING; TREATMENT DURATION; BACTERIAL GENE; CLASSIFICATION; CLINICAL TRIAL; CLOSTRIDIOIDES DIFFICILE; CLOSTRIDIUM INFECTION; DRUG EFFECT; MICROBIAL SENSITIVITY TEST; MULTICENTER STUDY;

ANTI-BACTERIAL AGENTS; BENZIMIDAZOLES; CLOSTRIDIUM DIFFICILE; CLOSTRIDIUM INFECTIONS; DOUBLE-BLIND METHOD; GENES, BACTERIAL; HUMANS; MICROBIAL SENSITIVITY TESTS; PYRIDINES; RIBOTYPING; VANCOMYCIN;

EID: 85055156338     PISSN: 03057453     EISSN: 14602091     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jac/dky135     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Lessa FC, Mu Y, BambergWMet al. Burden of Clostridiumdifficile infection in the United States.NEngl JMed2015; 372: 825-34.
2. He M, Miyajima F, Roberts P et al. Emergence and global spread of epidemic healthcare-associated Clostridium difficile. Nat Genet 2013; 45: 109-13.
3. Peterfreund GL, Vandivier LE, Sinha R et al. Succession in the gut microbiome following antibiotic and antibody therapies for Clostridium difficile. PLoS One 2012; 7: e46966.
4. Shields K, Araujo-Castillo RV, Theethira TG et al. Recurrent Clostridium difficile infection: from colonization to cure. Anaerobe 2015; 34: 59-73.
5. Ghantoji SS, Sail K, Lairson DR et al. Economic healthcare costs of Clostridium difficile infection: a systematic review. J Hosp Infect 2010; 74: 309-18.
6. Kelly CP. Can we identify patients at high risk of recurrent Clostridium difficile infection. Clin Microbiol Infect 2012; 18 Suppl 6: 21-7.
7. Vickers RJ, Tillotson G, Goldstein EJ et al. Ridinilazole: a novel therapy for Clostridiumdifficile infection. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2016; 48: 137-43.
8. Bassères E, Endres BT, KhaleduzzamanMet al. Impact on toxin production and cellmorphology in Clostridiumdifficile by ridinilazole (SMT19969), a novel treatment for C. difficile infection. J Antimicrob Chemother 2016; 71: 1245-51.
9. Goldstein EJ, Citron DM, Tyrrell KL et al. Comparative in vitro activities of SMT19969, a new antimicrobial agent, against Clostridium difficile and 350 Gram-positive and Gram-negative aerobic and anaerobic intestinal flora isolates. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2013; 57: 4872-6.
10. Goldstein EJ, Citron DM, Tyrrell KL. Comparative in vitro activities of SMT19969, a new antimicrobial agent, against 162 strains from 35 less frequently recovered intestinal Clostridium species: implications for Clostridium difficile recurrence. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2014; 58: 1187-91.
11. Corbett D, Wise A, Birchall S et al. In vitro susceptibility of Clostridium difficile to SMT19969 and comparators, as well as the killing kinetics and post-antibiotic effects of SMT19969 and comparators against C. difficile. JAntimicrobChemother 2015; 70: 1751-6.
12. Freeman J, Vernon J, Vickers R et al. Susceptibility of Clostridium difficile isolates of varying antimicrobial resistance phenotypes to SMT19969 and 11 comparators. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2016; 60: 689-92.
13. Baines SD, Crowther GS, Freeman J et al. SMT19969 as a treatment for Clostridium difficile infection: an assessment of antimicrobial activity using conventional susceptibility testing and an in vitro gut model. J Antimicrob Chemother 2015; 70: 182-9.
14. Sattar A, Thommes P, Payne L et al. SMT19969 for Clostridium difficile infection (CDi): in vivo efficacy compared with fidaxomicin and vancomycin in the hamstermodel of CDi.J Antimicrob Chemother 2015; 70: 1757-62.
15. Vickers R, RobinsonN, Best E et al. A randomised phase 1 study to investigate safety, pharmacokinetics and impact on gut microbiota following single andmultiple oral doses in healthymale subjects of SMT19969, a novel agent for Clostridiumdifficile infections. BMC Infect Dis 2015; 15: 91.
16. Vickers RJ, Tillotson GS, Nathan R et al. Efficacy and safety of ridinilazole compared with vancomycin for the treatment of Clostridiumdifficile infection: a phase 2, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, non-inferiority study. Lancet Infect Dis 2017; 17: 735-44.
17. George WL, Sutter VL, Citron D et al. Selective and differentialmediumfor isolation of Clostridiumdifficile. J ClinMicrobiol 1979; 9: 214-9.
18. Jousimies-Somer H, Summanen P, Citron DM et al. Wadsworth-KTL Anaerobic BacteriologyManual. Belmont, CA, USA: Star Pub., 2002.
19. Wilcox MH, Fawley WN, Parnell P. Value of lysozyme agar incorporation and alkaline thioglycollate exposure for the environmental recovery of Clostridium difficile.JHosp Infect 2000; 44: 65-9.
20. Fedorko DP, Williams EC. Use of cycloserine-cefoxitin-fructose agar and Lproline-aminopeptidase (PRO Discs) in the rapid identification of Clostridium difficile. J ClinMicrobiol 1997; 35: 1258-9.
21. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Methods for Antimicrobial Testing of Anaerobic Bacteria-Eighth Edition: Approved Standard M11-A8. CLSI, Wayne, PA, USA, 2012.
22. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing: Twenty-Fifth Informational Supplement M100-S25. CLSI, Wayne, PA, USA, 2015.
23. Walk ST, Micic D, Jain R et al. Clostridium difficile ribotype does not predict severe infection. Clin Infect Dis 2012; 55: 1661-8.
24. Martinson JN, Broadaway S, Lohman E et al. Evaluation of portability and cost of a fluorescent PCR ribotyping protocol for Clostridium difficile epidemiology. J ClinMicrobiol 2015; 53: 1192-7.
25. Persson S, Torpdahl M, Olsen KE. New multiplex PCR method for the detection of Clostridium difficile toxin A (tcdA) and toxin B (tcdB) and the binary toxin (cdtA/cdtB) genes applied to a Danish strain collection. Clin Microbiol Infect 2008; 14: 1057-64.
26. Persson S, Jensen JN, Olsen KE. Multiplex PCR method for detection of Clostridium difficile tcdA, tcdB, cdtA, and cdtB and internal in-frame deletion of tcdC. J ClinMicrobiol 2011; 49: 4299-300.
27. Moncrief JS, Zheng L, Neville LMet al. Genetic characterization of toxin Anegative, toxin B-positive Clostridium difficile isolates by PCR. J Clin Microbiol 2000; 38: 3072-5.
28. Carter GP, Lyras D, Allen DL et al. Binary toxin production in Clostridium difficile is regulated by CdtR, a LytTR family response regulator. J Bacteriol 2007; 189: 7290-301.
29. Sullivan NM, Pellett S, Wilkins TD. Purification and characterization of toxins A and B of Clostridiumdifficile. Infect Immun 1982; 35: 1032-40.
30. Stabler RA, He M, Dawson L et al. Comparative genome and phenotypic analysis of Clostridium difficile 027 strains provides insight into the evolution of a hypervirulent bacterium. Genome Biol 2009; 10: R102.
31. Braun V, Hundsberger T, Leukel P et al. Definition of the single integration site of the pathogenicity locus in Clostridiumdifficile. Gene 1996; 181: 29-38.
32. Sahm DF, Free L, Smith C et al. Rapid characterization schemes for surveillance isolates of vancomycin-resistant enterococci. J Clin Microbiol 1997; 35: 2026-30.
33. Isenberg HD. Clinical Microbiology Procedures Handbook.Washington, DC, USA: American Society ofMicrobiology, 1992.
34. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Methods for Dilution Antimicrobial Susceptibility Tests for Bacteria That Grow Aerobically-Tenth Edition: Approved Standard M07-A10. CLSI, Wayne, PA, USA, 2015.
35. Behroozian AA, Chludzinski JP, Lo ES et al. Detection of mixed populations of Clostridium difficile from symptomatic patients using capillary-based polymerase chain reaction ribotyping. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2013; 34: 961-6.
36. Waslawski S, Lo ES, Ewing SA et al. Clostridium difficile ribotype diversity at six health care institutions in the United States. J Clin Microbiol 2013; 51: 1938-41.
37. Burnham CA, Carroll KC. Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection: an ongoing conundrum for clinicians and for clinical laboratories. Clin Microbiol Rev 2013; 26: 604-30.
38. Snydman DR, McDermott LA, Jenkins SG et al. Epidemiologic trends in Clostridium difficile isolate ribotypes in United States from 2010 to 2014. Open Forum Infect Dis 2017; 4 Suppl 1: S391.