The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy · 2026
Enhanced activity of apramycin and apramycin-based combinations against Mycobacteroides abscessus.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Huang Yanqin, Truelson Katherine A, Stewart Isabella A, O'Doherty George A, Kirby James E
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Mycobacteroides abscessus is a rapidly growing non-tuberculous mycobacterium that causes chronic lung and soft tissue infections. Treatment options are severely limited. Amikacin has historically been a mainstay of combination treatment regimens. However, irreversible hearing loss and vestibular toxicity have led to a search for alternative agents. Apramycin is a novel aminoglycoside currently in Phase I clinical trials that may offer lower potential for ototoxic and renal toxic side effects.
OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to compare apramycin's in vitro activity with amikacin and other aminoglycosides against a large collection of M. abscessus clinical isolates, alone, and for apramycin and amikacin, in combination with clofazimine or linezolid. We also examined activity against a more limited collection of other rapidly growing mycobacteria.
METHODS: Analysis was performed using reference broth microdilution MIC testing, inkjet printer-assisted checkerboard assays, and time-kill assays.
RESULTS: Against M. abscessus, the MIC50/90 for apramycin (2 mg/L) was one-eighth that of amikacin (16 mg/L). Plazomicin was inactive, and organisms were rarely susceptible to tobramycin. Synergy of either apramycin or amikacin with clofazimine or linezolid was not detected by checkerboard assay. In time-kill studies, clofazimine modestly increased activity of apramycin and, to a lesser extent, amikacin. Apramycin and amikacin showed delayed bacterial killing that either achieved or approached a bactericidal threshold. Apramycin was similarly potent against other rapidly growing mycobacteria tested.
CONCLUSIONS: Apramycin exhibits more potent in vitro activity against a diverse set of M. abscessus and other rapidly growing mycobacteria than currently recommended aminoglycosides.
OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to compare apramycin's in vitro activity with amikacin and other aminoglycosides against a large collection of M. abscessus clinical isolates, alone, and for apramycin and amikacin, in combination with clofazimine or linezolid. We also examined activity against a more limited collection of other rapidly growing mycobacteria.
METHODS: Analysis was performed using reference broth microdilution MIC testing, inkjet printer-assisted checkerboard assays, and time-kill assays.
RESULTS: Against M. abscessus, the MIC50/90 for apramycin (2 mg/L) was one-eighth that of amikacin (16 mg/L). Plazomicin was inactive, and organisms were rarely susceptible to tobramycin. Synergy of either apramycin or amikacin with clofazimine or linezolid was not detected by checkerboard assay. In time-kill studies, clofazimine modestly increased activity of apramycin and, to a lesser extent, amikacin. Apramycin and amikacin showed delayed bacterial killing that either achieved or approached a bactericidal threshold. Apramycin was similarly potent against other rapidly growing mycobacteria tested.
CONCLUSIONS: Apramycin exhibits more potent in vitro activity against a diverse set of M. abscessus and other rapidly growing mycobacteria than currently recommended aminoglycosides.