DOCSLIB.ORG

The Activity of Several Newer Antimicrobials Against Logarithmically Multiplying M

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Activity of Several Newer Antimicrobials Against Logarithmically Multiplying M Lepr Rev (2011) 82, 253–258 The activity of several newer antimicrobials against logarithmically multiplying M. leprae in mice JASMIN BURGOS, EDUARDO DE LA CRUZ, ROSE PAREDES, CORA REVELYN ANDAYA & ROBERT H. GELBER Leonard Wood Memorial Center for Leprosy Research, Cebu, Philippines Accepted for publication 01 December 2010 Summary Introduction: Moxifloxacin, rifampicin, rifapentine, linezolid, and PA 824, alone and in combination, have been previously administered, as single doses and five times daily doses, to M. leprae infected mice during lag phase multiplication and were each found to have some bactericidal activity. Design: The fluroquinolones, ofloxacin, moxifloxacin and gatifloxacin, (50 mg/kg, 150 mg/kg and 300 mg/kg) and the rifamycins (5 mg/kg, 10 mg/kg, and 20 mg/kg), rifampicin and rifapentine, were evaluated alone and in combination for bactericidal activity against M. leprae using the mouse footpad model during logarithmic multiplication. Linezolid and PA 824 were similarly evaluated alone and linezolid in combination with rifampicin, minocycline and ofloxacin. Results: The three fluroquinolones and rifamycins were found alone and in combination to be bactericidal at all dosage schedules. PA 824 had no activity against M. leprae, while linezolid at a dose of 25 mg/kg was bacteriostatic, and progressively more bactericidal at doses of 50 mg/kg and 100 mg/kg. No antagonisms were detected between any of these drugs when used in combinations. Conclusion: Moxifloxacin, gatifloxacin, rifapentine and linezolid were found bactericidal against rapidly multiplying M. leprae. Introduction Antimicrobial therapy is the major medical intervention that favourably alters the course of disease in leprosy patients and the only means currently available to check its dissemination to others. Combinations of dapsone, clofazimine and rifampicin, are currently recommended by the WHO1 for treating leprosy patients. Rifampicin2–5 is the only component that is bactericidal for M. leprae. The WHO treatment regimens are used to treat nearly all leprosy patients and are provided by Novartis free of charge. Unfortunately, patients may Correspondence to: Robert H. Gelber, 220 Scenic Avenue, San Anselmo, CA 94960 USA (Tel: þ415.454.8765; Fax: þ415.454.8191; e-mail: [email protected]) 0305-7518/11/064053+06 $1.00 q Lepra 253 254 J. Burgos et al. experience intolerance, side effects and toxicity from each of the regimen’s components. The development of resistance in M. leprae6–8 to dapsone and rifampicin, and treatment failure9–12 is of concern. Therefore, alternative agents and more bactericidal combinations need to be tested, particularly if the duration of chemotherapy, can be shortened. In addition to the components of MDT, the number of available antimicrobials to treat leprosy is currently limited. Though pefloxacin/ofloxacin, minocycline and clarithromycin have been found in clinical trials13 –17 to be more active than dapsone2 and clofazimine,2 clinical application of these has been largely confined to the use of single dose rifampicin, ofloxacin and minocycline (ROM) for single lesion PB leprosy.1 We18 and others19 have found several fluroquinolones, including moxifloxacin, to be more active against M. leprae in mice than pefloxacin and ofloxacin, while moxifloxacin has proven more bactericidal in leprosy patients.20,21 Though there are studies utilising moxifloxacin,22,23 gatifloxacin,24,25 linezolid26 and PA 82427,28 in murine tuberculosis, these agents have only undergone limited evaluation19,29 in the mouse leprosy model and primarily in ‘stationary phase’ multiplication. Moxifloxacin,22,23 gatifloxacin,24,25 and linezolid26 are licensed for human use and are being used to treat several bacterial infections, while PA 824, a nitromidazofuran compound, is in drug development, is uniquely and substantially active against M. tuberculosis at low concentrations and is being developed primarily to treat the emerging problem of multidrug resistance tuberculosis. In order to confirm and expand upon the work on the aforementioned antimicrobials, herein we evaluated the activity of these agents alone and in combination against rapidly dividing M. leprae in the murine model. Materials and Methods The kinetic technique of Shepard was used.30 Untreated control and treated mice (CBA/j) were infected in both hind feet with 5,000 M. leprae derived from a skin biopsy taken from an untreated lepromatous leprosy patient, and treated from Day 60 to 150 after footpad infection. At Day 150 and at intervals thereafter mice (both hind feet) were harvested, and M. leprae therein enumerated. Growthwas considered to have occurredif $ 105 bacilli/footpad were found. Drugs were considered inactive on Day 150 if M. leprae growth occurred at the same rate as in untreated control mice, bacteriostatic if growth begins immediately upon drug discontinuation, and by previously utilised criteria,18 partially bactericidal if growth is further delayed and fully bactericidal if growth of M. leprae is not detected 9 months after the completion of therapy. In the first study we administered by gastric gavage moxifloxacin (Bayer Pharmaceuticals), gatifloxacin (Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company) and ofloxacin each at doses of 50 mg/kg, 150 mg/kg and 300 mg/kg five times weekly, as well as rifampicin and rifapentine (Aventis Incorporated) at 5 mg/kg, 10 mg/kg and 20 mg/kg once weekly. Also, to assess the potential for synergism, the three fluoroquinolones at doses of 50 mg/kg five times weekly were administered to groups of mice together with rifampicin or rifapentene 5 mg/kg once weekly. In the second study groups of mice were treated by gastric gavage with linezolid (Upjohn Company) at 25 mg/kg, 50 mg/kg and 100 mg/kg five times weekly, as well as rifampicin 5 mg/kg once weekly by gavage, dapsone 0·001% in diet, minocycline 0·01% in diet, and ofloxacin 50 mg/kg five times weekly by gavage. In order to assess the potential that linezolid provides additive activity when combined with other active agents, groups of mice were treated with linezolid at the lowest tested dose (25 mg/kg), together with other study Newer Antimicrobials against M. leprae 255 antimicrobial agents at the dosage schedules which had previously been established active but not fully bactericidal. In the third study, PA 824 was evaluated in groups of mice treated by gastric gavage five times weekly at dosages of 3·2 mg/kg, 6·3 mg/kg, 12·5 mg/kg, 25 mg/kg, 50 mg/kg and 100 mg/kg. Results M. leprae did not grow in any mice treated with the three dosage levels of oxfloxacin, gatifloxacin, moxifloxacin, rifampicin and rifapentine which were harvested at intervals up to nine or more months after the completion of therapy (Table 1). No M. leprae grew in mice treated with combinations of each of the three fluroquinolones and two rifamycins. Thus, by the criteria employed, the three regimens of all three fluroquinolones and the two rifamycins, as well as the combination, were fully bactericidal against logarithmically multiplying M. leprae. The findings of the second study are presented in Table 2. Multiplication of M. leprae in untreated control mice was detected 133 days after footpad infection. In all treated groups of mice M. leprae growth was found undetectable in seven or more mice at varying intervals beginning 120 days after footpad infection and prior to when growth was first detected or last found undetectable. Linezolid at a dosage of 25 mg/kg administered to mice five times weekly was found to be bacteriostatic, at 50 mg/kg found partially bactericidal and at 100 mg/kg fully bactericidal. The low dose of linezolid, rifampicin, minocycline and ofloxacin alone all permitted M. leprae multiplication, while in Table 1. Study 1: fluoroquinolones and rifampycins Mice demonstrating M. leprae multiplication/total number Days after M. leprae Treatment of mice studied Infection (Range) No therapy 50/54 152–624 Moxifloxacin 50 mg/kg 0/10 161–425 Moxifloxacin 150 mg/kg 0/11 161–420 Moxifloxacin 300 mg/kg 0/10 161–440 Gatifloxacin 50 mg/kg 0/17 161–407 Gatifloxacin 150 mg/kg 0/11 161–561 Gatifloxacin 300 mg/kg 0/8 161–550 Ofloxacin 50 mg/kg 0/8 161–550 Ofloxacin 150 mg/kg 0/9 161–617 Ofloxacin 300 mg/kg 0/10 161–642 Rifampicin 5 mg/kg 0/8 161–481 Rifampicin 10 mg/kg 0/11 161–425 Rifampicin 20 mg/kg 0/11 161–624 Rifapentene 5 mg/kg 0/11 161–329 Rifapentene 10 mg/kg 0/11 161–379 Rifapentene 20 mg/kg 0/12 161–334 Moxifloxacin 50 mg/kg þ Rifampicin 5 mg/kg 0/11 161–621 Gatifloxacin 50 mg/kg þ Rifampicin 5 mg/kg 0/11 161–567 Ofloxacin 50 mg/kg þ Rifampicin 5 mg/kg 0/11 161–411 Moxifloxacin 50 mg/kg þ Rifapentene 5 mg/kg 0/11 161–494 Gatifloxacin 50 mg/kg þ Rifapentene 5 mg/kg 0/8 161–312 Ofloxacin 50 mg/kg þ Rifapentene 5 mg/kg 0/12 161–652 256 J. Burgos et al. Table 2. Linezolid therapy M. leprae growth detected (day after infection when growth first detected Treatment or last day growth found still undetectable) No therapy þ (133) Linezolid 25 mg/kg þ (196) Linezolid 50 mg/kg þ (226) Linezolid 100 mg/kg 2 (225) Dapsone 0·001% in diet 2 (279) Rifampicin 5 mg/kg þ (201) Minocycline 0·01% in diet þ (257) Ofloxacin 50 mg/kg þ (238) Linezolid 25 mg/kg þ Dapsone 0·001% in diet 2 (336) Linezolid 25 mg/kg þ Rifampicin 5 mg/kg 2 (196) Linezolid 25 mg/kg þ Minocycline 0·01% in diet þ (371) Linezolid 25 mg/kg þ Ofloxacin 50 mg/kg 2 (267) In all treated groups of mice M. leprae growth was found undetectable in seven or more mice at varying intervals beginning 120 days after footpad infection and prior to when growth was first detected or last found undetectable.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Folic Acid Antagonists: Antimicrobial and Immunomodulating Mechanisms and Applications
    International Journal of Molecular Sciences Review Folic Acid Antagonists: Antimicrobial and Immunomodulating Mechanisms and Applications Daniel Fernández-Villa 1, Maria Rosa Aguilar 1,2 and Luis Rojo 1,2,* 1 Instituto de Ciencia y Tecnología de Polímeros, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, CSIC, 28006 Madrid, Spain; [email protected] (D.F.-V.); [email protected] (M.R.A.) 2 Consorcio Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Bioingeniería, Biomateriales y Nanomedicina, 28029 Madrid, Spain * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +34-915-622-900 Received: 18 September 2019; Accepted: 7 October 2019; Published: 9 October 2019 Abstract: Bacterial, protozoan and other microbial infections share an accelerated metabolic rate. In order to ensure a proper functioning of cell replication and proteins and nucleic acids synthesis processes, folate metabolism rate is also increased in these cases. For this reason, folic acid antagonists have been used since their discovery to treat different kinds of microbial infections, taking advantage of this metabolic difference when compared with human cells. However, resistances to these compounds have emerged since then and only combined therapies are currently used in clinic. In addition, some of these compounds have been found to have an immunomodulatory behavior that allows clinicians using them as anti-inflammatory or immunosuppressive drugs. Therefore, the aim of this review is to provide an updated state-of-the-art on the use of antifolates as antibacterial and immunomodulating agents in the clinical setting, as well as to present their action mechanisms and currently investigated biomedical applications. Keywords: folic acid antagonists; antifolates; antibiotics; antibacterials; immunomodulation; sulfonamides; antimalarial 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Crystal Structure and Stability of Gyrase–Fluoroquinolone Cleaved Complexes from Mycobacterium Tuberculosis
    Crystal structure and stability of gyrase–fluoroquinolone cleaved complexes from Mycobacterium tuberculosis Tim R. Blowera,1, Benjamin H. Williamsonb, Robert J. Kernsb, and James M. Bergera,2 aDepartment of Biophysics and Biophysical Chemistry, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21205; and bDivision of Medicinal and Natural Products Chemistry, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242 This contribution is part of the special series of Inaugural Articles by members of the National Academy of Sciences elected in 2013. Contributed by James M. Berger, December 22, 2015 (sent for review October 28, 2015; reviewed by Benjamin Bax and Yuk-Ching Tse-Dinh) Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Mtb) infects one-third of the world’s threatens both first-line and second-line use (11). The wide- population and in 2013 accounted for 1.5 million deaths. Fluoro- spread testing of fluoroquinolones against TB has revealed quinolone antibacterials, which target DNA gyrase, are critical considerable variation in efficacy of different drug variants agents used to halt the progression from multidrug-resistant tu- against Mtb. For example, ciprofloxacin is only marginally active, berculosis to extensively resistant disease; however, fluoroquino- and its early use with Mtb was halted in favor of ofloxacin and lone resistance is emerging and new ways to bypass resistance are levofloxacin (7). These two agents are now proving to be less required. To better explain known differences in fluoroquinolone effective than moxifloxacin and gatifloxacin (7, 10); however, the action, the crystal structures of the WT Mtb DNA gyrase cleavage newest two compounds also exhibit some nonideality. For ex- core and a fluoroquinolone-sensitized mutant were determined in ample, gatifloxacin can elicit side effects such as hypo/hypergly- complex with DNA and five fluoroquinolones.
    [Show full text]
  • Drug Delivery Systems on Leprosy Therapy: Moving Towards Eradication?
    pharmaceutics Review Drug Delivery Systems on Leprosy Therapy: Moving Towards Eradication? Luíse L. Chaves 1,2,*, Yuri Patriota 2, José L. Soares-Sobrinho 2 , Alexandre C. C. Vieira 1,3, Sofia A. Costa Lima 1,4 and Salette Reis 1,* 1 Laboratório Associado para a Química Verde, Rede de Química e Tecnologia, Departamento de Ciências Químicas, Faculdade de Farmácia, Universidade do Porto, 4050-313 Porto, Portugal; [email protected] (A.C.C.V.); slima@ff.up.pt (S.A.C.L.) 2 Núcleo de Controle de Qualidade de Medicamentos e Correlatos, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife 50740-521, Brazil; [email protected] (Y.P.); [email protected] (J.L.S.-S.) 3 Laboratório de Tecnologia dos Medicamentos, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife 50740-521, Brazil 4 Cooperativa de Ensino Superior Politécnico e Universitário, Instituto Universitário de Ciências da Saúde, 4585-116 Gandra, Portugal * Correspondence: [email protected] (L.L.C.); shreis@ff.up.pt (S.R.) Received: 30 October 2020; Accepted: 4 December 2020; Published: 11 December 2020 Abstract: Leprosy disease remains an important public health issue as it is still endemic in several countries. Mycobacterium leprae, the causative agent of leprosy, presents tropism for cells of the reticuloendothelial and peripheral nervous system. Current multidrug therapy consists of clofazimine, dapsone and rifampicin. Despite significant improvements in leprosy treatment, in most programs, successful completion of the therapy is still sub-optimal. Drug resistance has emerged in some countries. This review discusses the status of leprosy disease worldwide, providing information regarding infectious agents, clinical manifestations, diagnosis, actual treatment and future perspectives and strategies on targets for an efficient targeted delivery therapy.
    [Show full text]
  • Eye Infections
    CLINICAL Approach Taking a Look at Common Eye Infections John T. Huang, MD, FRCSC and Peter T. Huang, MD, FRCSC he acutely red eye is often seen first by the primary-care physician. The exact Tcause may be difficult to determine and may cause some concern that a serious ocular condition has been missed. Thorough history and clinical examination will help delineate the final diagnosis. When there are doubts, prompt referral to an oph- thalmologist can prevent serious consequences. Often, the most likely diagnosis of an acutely red eye is acute conjunctivitis. In the first day, an acute bacterial infection may be hard to differentiate from viral, chlamydial and noninfectious conjunctivitis and from episcleritis or scleritis. Below is a review of the most commonly seen forms of eye infections and treat- ments. Failure to improve after three to five days should lead to a re-evaluation of the patient and appropriate referral where necessary. CHRONIC BLEPHARITIS Clinical: Gritty burning sensation, mattering, lid margin swelling and/or scaly, flaky debris, mild hyperemia of conjunctiva; may have acne rosacea or hyperkeratotic dermatitis (Figure 1). Anterior: Staphylococcus aureus (follicles, accessory glands); posterior (meibomian glands). Treatment: • Lid scrubs (baby shampoo, lid-care towellettes, warm compresses). Figure 1. Chronic blepharitis. There may be localized sensitivity to the shampoo or the components of the solution in the towellettes (e.g., benzyl alcohol). • Hygiene is important for the treatment and management of chronic blepharitis. Topical antibiotic-corticosteroid combinations (e.g., tobramycin drops, tobramycin/dexamethasone or sulfacetamide sodium-prednisolone acetate). Usage of these medications is effective in providing symptomatic relief, as the inflammatory component of the problem is more effectively dealt with.
    [Show full text]
  • Gatifloxacin for Treating Enteric Fever Submission to the 18Th Expert
    Gatifloxacin for enteric fever Gatifloxacin for treating enteric fever Submission to the 18th Expert Committee on the Selection and Use of Essential Medicines 1 Gatifloxacin for enteric fever Table of contents Gatifloxacin for treating enteric fever....................................................................................... 1 Submission to the 18th Expert Committee on the Selection and Use of Essential Medicines . 1 1 Summary statement of the proposal for inclusion........................................................... 4 1.1 Rationale for this submission................................................................................... 4 2 Focal point in WHO submitting the application ............................................................... 4 3 Organizations consulted and supporting the application ................................................ 5 4 International Nonproprietary Name (INN, generic name) of the medicine..................... 5 5 Formulation proposed for inclusion ................................................................................. 5 5.1 Prospective formulation improvements.................................................................. 6 6 International availability................................................................................................... 6 6.1 Patent status ............................................................................................................ 6 6.2 Production...............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • WHO Report on Surveillance of Antibiotic Consumption: 2016-2018 Early Implementation ISBN 978-92-4-151488-0 © World Health Organization 2018 Some Rights Reserved
    WHO Report on Surveillance of Antibiotic Consumption 2016-2018 Early implementation WHO Report on Surveillance of Antibiotic Consumption 2016 - 2018 Early implementation WHO report on surveillance of antibiotic consumption: 2016-2018 early implementation ISBN 978-92-4-151488-0 © World Health Organization 2018 Some rights reserved. This work is available under the Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO licence (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO; https://creativecommons. org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/igo). Under the terms of this licence, you may copy, redistribute and adapt the work for non- commercial purposes, provided the work is appropriately cited, as indicated below. In any use of this work, there should be no suggestion that WHO endorses any specific organization, products or services. The use of the WHO logo is not permitted. If you adapt the work, then you must license your work under the same or equivalent Creative Commons licence. If you create a translation of this work, you should add the following disclaimer along with the suggested citation: “This translation was not created by the World Health Organization (WHO). WHO is not responsible for the content or accuracy of this translation. The original English edition shall be the binding and authentic edition”. Any mediation relating to disputes arising under the licence shall be conducted in accordance with the mediation rules of the World Intellectual Property Organization. Suggested citation. WHO report on surveillance of antibiotic consumption: 2016-2018 early implementation. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2018. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO. Cataloguing-in-Publication (CIP) data.
    [Show full text]
  • Estonian Statistics on Medicines 2016 1/41
    Estonian Statistics on Medicines 2016 ATC code ATC group / Active substance (rout of admin.) Quantity sold Unit DDD Unit DDD/1000/ day A ALIMENTARY TRACT AND METABOLISM 167,8985 A01 STOMATOLOGICAL PREPARATIONS 0,0738 A01A STOMATOLOGICAL PREPARATIONS 0,0738 A01AB Antiinfectives and antiseptics for local oral treatment 0,0738 A01AB09 Miconazole (O) 7088 g 0,2 g 0,0738 A01AB12 Hexetidine (O) 1951200 ml A01AB81 Neomycin+ Benzocaine (dental) 30200 pieces A01AB82 Demeclocycline+ Triamcinolone (dental) 680 g A01AC Corticosteroids for local oral treatment A01AC81 Dexamethasone+ Thymol (dental) 3094 ml A01AD Other agents for local oral treatment A01AD80 Lidocaine+ Cetylpyridinium chloride (gingival) 227150 g A01AD81 Lidocaine+ Cetrimide (O) 30900 g A01AD82 Choline salicylate (O) 864720 pieces A01AD83 Lidocaine+ Chamomille extract (O) 370080 g A01AD90 Lidocaine+ Paraformaldehyde (dental) 405 g A02 DRUGS FOR ACID RELATED DISORDERS 47,1312 A02A ANTACIDS 1,0133 Combinations and complexes of aluminium, calcium and A02AD 1,0133 magnesium compounds A02AD81 Aluminium hydroxide+ Magnesium hydroxide (O) 811120 pieces 10 pieces 0,1689 A02AD81 Aluminium hydroxide+ Magnesium hydroxide (O) 3101974 ml 50 ml 0,1292 A02AD83 Calcium carbonate+ Magnesium carbonate (O) 3434232 pieces 10 pieces 0,7152 DRUGS FOR PEPTIC ULCER AND GASTRO- A02B 46,1179 OESOPHAGEAL REFLUX DISEASE (GORD) A02BA H2-receptor antagonists 2,3855 A02BA02 Ranitidine (O) 340327,5 g 0,3 g 2,3624 A02BA02 Ranitidine (P) 3318,25 g 0,3 g 0,0230 A02BC Proton pump inhibitors 43,7324 A02BC01 Omeprazole
    [Show full text]
  • Supplementary Material a Gene Expression Signature Associated
    Supplementary Material A Gene Expression Signature Associated With Overall Survival in Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma Suggests a New Treatment Strategy Jean-Pierre Gillet, Jesper B. Andersen, James P. Madigan, Sudhir Varma, Rachel K. Bagni, Katie Powell, William E. Burgan, Chung-Pu Wu, Anna Maria Calcagno, Suresh V. Ambudkar, Snorri S. Thorgeirsson, Michael M. Gottesman Journal: Molecular Pharmacology Table S1: Compounds highlighted through the Connectivity Map tool Rank for Name of drug on Connectivity Map score - Number of Connectivity Map Probability of getting Proportion of other drugs Drug signature is drug, rated Connectivity Map similarity between the experiments used score normalized an enrichment this that share this same significant for what according to gene expression signature to compute mean using scores from high if there is no signature (smaller values percent of the "n" p-value of drug and the signature similarity random selections of connection between mean that the signature is experiments? used as input genes drug signature and very specific to this input signature particular drug) Rank C-map name Mean n Enrichment p Specificity Percent non-null 1 8-azaguanine 0.916 4 0.975 0 0 100 2 adiphenine -0.765 5 -0.909 0 0.0242 100 3 trichostatin A 0.485 182 0.306 0 0.7204 73 4 tanespimycin 0.474 62 0.297 0 0.3834 72 5 apigenin 0.851 4 0.937 0.00002 0.0234 100 6 0175029-0000 0.797 6 0.86 0.00002 0.0177 100 7 thiamphenicol -0.711 5 -0.903 0.00004 0 100 8 thioguanosine 0.821 4 0.902 0.0001 0.0177 100 9 viomycin -0.723
    [Show full text]
  • RIFAMPIN (Veterinary—Systemic)
    RIFAMPIN (Veterinary—Systemic) Some commonly used brand names for human-labeled products are: with erythromycin and rifampin has been reported.{R-39} Cross- Rifadin; Rifadin IV; Rimactane; and Rofact. resistance to other antibiotics or transfer of resistance to other local microorganisms has not been reported.{R-2; 4} Category: Antibacterial (systemic). Accepted ELUS,CAN EL Pneumonia, Rhodococcus equi (treatment adjunct) ; or Indications ELUS,CANExtrapulmonary infection, Rhodococcus equi (treatment Note: Rifampin is not specifically approved for veterinary use. In adjunct)EL—Foals: Rifampin is used in combination with ELUS ELCAN other USP information monographs the and erythromycin in the treatment of pneumonia caused by designations refer to uses that are not included in U.S. and Rhodococcus (Corynebacterium) equi infection in foals.{R-33; 34; 36} Canadian product labeling; however, in this monograph they Although the lung appears to be most vulnerable to Rhodococcus reflect the lack of veterinary products and, therefore, product equi infection, in some cases susceptible foals have been found to labeling. have abdominal or subcutaneous abscesses, bacterial endocarditis, diskospondylitis, gastrointestinal infections, osteomyelitis, or General considerations septicemia.{R-37-42} In many, but not all of these cases, the foal has Rifampin is a broad-spectrum antibiotic, with activity against many an accompanying pneumonia.{R-37-42} gram-positive and some gram-negative aerobic bacteria as well as R. equi are susceptible in vitro to erythromycin alone, and facultative anaerobic organisms.{R-7; 53; 60} However, for clinical erythromycin alone has been effective in the treatment of this purposes, rifampin generally should not be considered broad- infection.{R-36; 66; 67; 75} However, no studies have been performed spectrum until proven so in each case.
    [Show full text]
  • Aczone Gel) Reference Number: CP.PCH.32 Effective Date: 12.01.18 Last Review Date: 11.20 Line of Business: Commercial, HIM Revision Log
    Clinical Policy: Dapsone (Aczone Gel) Reference Number: CP.PCH.32 Effective Date: 12.01.18 Last Review Date: 11.20 Line of Business: Commercial, HIM Revision Log See Important Reminder at the end of this policy for important regulatory and legal information. Description Dapsone (Aczone® Gel) is a sulfone. FDA Approved Indication(s) Aczone Gel is indicated for the topical treatment of acne vulgaris. The 7.5% strength is specifically indicated in patients 9 years of age and older Policy/Criteria Provider must submit documentation (such as office chart notes, lab results or other clinical information) supporting that member has met all approval criteria. It is the policy of health plans affiliated with Centene Corporation® that Aczone Gel is medically necessary when the following criteria are met: I. Initial Approval Criteria A. Acne Vulgaris (must meet all): 1. Diagnosis of acne vulgaris; 2. Age ≥ 9 years; 3. Failure of TWO preferred topical anti-acne agents (e.g., topical adapalene, tretinoin, benzoyl peroxide/erythromycin, clindamycin, benzoyl peroxide/clindamycin phosphate, erythromycin, sulfacetamide/sulfur) unless clinically significant adverse effects are experienced or all are contraindicated; 4. Dose does not exceed 1 tube or pump per month. Approval duration: Commercial: Length of Benefit HIM: 3 months B. Other diagnoses/indications 1. Refer to the off-label use policy for the relevant line of business if diagnosis is NOT specifically listed under section III (Diagnoses/Indications for which coverage is NOT authorized): CP.CPA.09 for commercial and HIM.PHAR.21 for health insurance marketplace. II. Continued Therapy A. Acne Vulgaris (must meet all): 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Estonian Statistics on Medicines 2013 1/44
    Estonian Statistics on Medicines 2013 DDD/1000/ ATC code ATC group / INN (rout of admin.) Quantity sold Unit DDD Unit day A ALIMENTARY TRACT AND METABOLISM 146,8152 A01 STOMATOLOGICAL PREPARATIONS 0,0760 A01A STOMATOLOGICAL PREPARATIONS 0,0760 A01AB Antiinfectives and antiseptics for local oral treatment 0,0760 A01AB09 Miconazole(O) 7139,2 g 0,2 g 0,0760 A01AB12 Hexetidine(O) 1541120 ml A01AB81 Neomycin+Benzocaine(C) 23900 pieces A01AC Corticosteroids for local oral treatment A01AC81 Dexamethasone+Thymol(dental) 2639 ml A01AD Other agents for local oral treatment A01AD80 Lidocaine+Cetylpyridinium chloride(gingival) 179340 g A01AD81 Lidocaine+Cetrimide(O) 23565 g A01AD82 Choline salicylate(O) 824240 pieces A01AD83 Lidocaine+Chamomille extract(O) 317140 g A01AD86 Lidocaine+Eugenol(gingival) 1128 g A02 DRUGS FOR ACID RELATED DISORDERS 35,6598 A02A ANTACIDS 0,9596 Combinations and complexes of aluminium, calcium and A02AD 0,9596 magnesium compounds A02AD81 Aluminium hydroxide+Magnesium hydroxide(O) 591680 pieces 10 pieces 0,1261 A02AD81 Aluminium hydroxide+Magnesium hydroxide(O) 1998558 ml 50 ml 0,0852 A02AD82 Aluminium aminoacetate+Magnesium oxide(O) 463540 pieces 10 pieces 0,0988 A02AD83 Calcium carbonate+Magnesium carbonate(O) 3049560 pieces 10 pieces 0,6497 A02AF Antacids with antiflatulents Aluminium hydroxide+Magnesium A02AF80 1000790 ml hydroxide+Simeticone(O) DRUGS FOR PEPTIC ULCER AND GASTRO- A02B 34,7001 OESOPHAGEAL REFLUX DISEASE (GORD) A02BA H2-receptor antagonists 3,5364 A02BA02 Ranitidine(O) 494352,3 g 0,3 g 3,5106 A02BA02 Ranitidine(P)
    [Show full text]
  • Summary Report on Antimicrobials Dispensed in Public Hospitals
    Summary Report on Antimicrobials Dispensed in Public Hospitals Year 2014 - 2016 Infection Control Branch Centre for Health Protection Department of Health October 2019 (Version as at 08 October 2019) Summary Report on Antimicrobial Dispensed CONTENTS in Public Hospitals (2014 - 2016) Contents Executive Summary i 1 Introduction 1 2 Background 1 2.1 Healthcare system of Hong Kong ......................... 2 3 Data Sources and Methodology 2 3.1 Data sources .................................... 2 3.2 Methodology ................................... 3 3.3 Antimicrobial names ............................... 4 4 Results 5 4.1 Overall annual dispensed quantities and percentage changes in all HA services . 5 4.1.1 Five most dispensed antimicrobial groups in all HA services . 5 4.1.2 Ten most dispensed antimicrobials in all HA services . 6 4.2 Overall annual dispensed quantities and percentage changes in HA non-inpatient service ....................................... 8 4.2.1 Five most dispensed antimicrobial groups in HA non-inpatient service . 10 4.2.2 Ten most dispensed antimicrobials in HA non-inpatient service . 10 4.2.3 Antimicrobial dispensed in HA non-inpatient service, stratified by service type ................................ 11 4.3 Overall annual dispensed quantities and percentage changes in HA inpatient service ....................................... 12 4.3.1 Five most dispensed antimicrobial groups in HA inpatient service . 13 4.3.2 Ten most dispensed antimicrobials in HA inpatient service . 14 4.3.3 Ten most dispensed antimicrobials in HA inpatient service, stratified by specialty ................................. 15 4.4 Overall annual dispensed quantities and percentage change of locally-important broad-spectrum antimicrobials in all HA services . 16 4.4.1 Locally-important broad-spectrum antimicrobial dispensed in HA inpatient service, stratified by specialty .
    [Show full text]