gms | German Medical Science

10. Kongress für Infektionskrankheiten und Tropenmedizin (KIT 2010)

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Infektiologie,
Deutsche AIDS-Gesellschaft,
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Tropenmedizin und Internationale Gesundheit,
Paul-Ehrlich-Gesellschaft für Chemotherapie

23.06. - 26.06.2010, Köln

Ceftobiprole, vancomycin, teicoplanin and linezolid susceptibility of Gram-positive pathogens from Austria, Germany and Switzerland

Empfindlichkeit von Gram-positiven Pathogenen aus Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz gegenüber Ceftobiprol, Vancomycin, Teicoplanin und Linezolid

Meeting Abstract

  • F.-J. Schmitz - Klinikum Minden, Germany
  • C. Mackenzie - Universitätsklinikum Düsseldorf, Germany
  • S. Schubert - Universitätsklinikum SH, Campus Kiel, Germany
  • J. Schrenzel - Universitätsspital Genf, Switzerland
  • N. Günther - Klinikum Braunschweig, Germany
  • S. Decker-Burgard - Janssen-Cilag, Neuss, Germany
  • J. Laeuffer - Janssen-Cilag, Baar, Switzerland
  • M.-L. Cassettari - Quotient Bioresearch Ltd, Fordham, United Kingdom
  • I. Morrissey - Quotient Bioresearch Ltd, Fordham, United Kingdom

10. Kongress für Infektionskrankheiten und Tropenmedizin (KIT 2010). Köln, 23.-26.06.2010. Düsseldorf: German Medical Science GMS Publishing House; 2010. DocP13

doi: 10.3205/10kit069, urn:nbn:de:0183-10kit0694

Published: June 2, 2010

© 2010 Schmitz et al.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( You are free: to Share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work, provided the original author and source are credited.



Objectives: To evaluate the susceptibility of contemporary Gram-positive pathogens (GPP) causing serious infections in hospitalized patients to ceftobiprole (BPR), a novel cephalosporin with bactericidal activity against both Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria, including methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA). Here we report the comparative activity of BPR, vancomycin (VAN), teicoplanin (TEI) and linezolid (LIN) against GPPs collected by 18 centres across Austria, Germany and Switzerland.

Methods: 842 GPPs (including 141 MRSA, 156 MSSA, 136 methicillin-resistant [MRC] and 75 methicillin-susceptible [MSC] coagulase-negative staphylococci, 112 Enterococcus spp. [ES], 61 viridans group streptococci [VGS] and 157 beta-haemolytic streptococci [BHS]) were collected from May to July 2008. MICs were determined at each centre using Etest methodology.

Results: BPR, VAN, TEI and LIN were equally active against MRSA with MIC90 values of 2 mg/L but against MSSA, BPR was the most active agent (MIC90 0.5 mg/L for BPR and 2 mg/L for the other three agents). BPR and LIN had an MIC90 of 2 and 1 mg/L, respectively, against MRC and 0.5 and 1 mg/L, respectively, against MSC. VAN and TEI were less active than BPR and LIN against both groups of coagulase-negative staphylococci (MIC90 = 4 and 8 mg/L, respsctively, vs. MRC and 2 and 4 mg/L vs. MSC). Against ES, TEI had an MIC90 of 0.5 mg/L, LIN and BPR both had an MIC90 of 2 mg/L and VAN had an MIC90 of 4 mg/L. All but one ES were VSE. TEI and BPR had MIC90 of 0.12 and 0.25 mg/L, respectively,against VGS compared with 1 mg/L for LIN and VAN, although BPR had an MIC50 2-fold lower than TEI and 16- to 32-fold lower than VAN and LIN. BPR was the most potent agent against BHS exceeding the activity of TEI, VAN and LIN 8-, 32-, and 64-fold, respectively.

Conclusion: Ceftobiprole was highly active against the GPPs collected in Austria, Germany and Switzerland and showed activity comparable to or better than vancomycin, teicoplanin and linezolid against all staphylococci, regardless of their susceptibility to methicillin.