Skip to main content
PMC home page
Frontiers in Microbiology logoLink to Frontiers in Microbiology
. 2017 Dec 11;8:2452. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2017.02452

Repurposing and Revival of the Drugs: A New Approach to Combat the Drug Resistant Tuberculosis

Divakar Sharma 1,2,*, Yogesh K Dhuriya 3, Nirmala Deo 1, Deepa Bisht 1
PMCID: PMC5732208  PMID: 29321768

Abstract

Emergence of drug resistant tuberculosis like multi drug resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB), extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis (XDR-TB) and totally drug resistant tuberculosis (TDR-TB) has created a new challenge to fight against these bad bugs of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Repurposing and revival of the drugs are the new trends/options to combat these worsen situations of tuberculosis in the antibiotics resistance era or in the situation of global emergency. Bactericidal and synergistic effect of repurposed/revived drugs along with the latest drugs bedaquiline and delamanid used in the treatment of MDR-TB, XDR-TB, and TDR-TB might be the choice for future promising combinatorial chemotherapy against these bad bugs.

Keywords: drug resistance tuberculosis, repurposing, revival of drugs, synergistic effect, proteomics and bioinformatics

Introduction

Current Scenario

Mycobacterium tuberculosis is a deadly infectious pathogen causing tuberculosis (TB) worldwide. According to WHO (2016) 10.4 million new cases with 1.5 million deaths including 0.4 million individuals with HIV-TB co-infection were reported globally (WHO, 2016). Although TB can be cured by chemotherapy, but the emergence of drug resistant tuberculosis [such as multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB), extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis (XDR-TB) and totally drug resistant tuberculosis (TDR-TB)] has created a new challenge to combat the adverse situation of the disease. Since the decade rates of antibiotic resistance to first and second line anti-TB drugs are dramatically increasing (Cambau et al., 2015). Due to various complexities and high burden of HIV-TB co-infection treatments of MDR-TB, XDR-TB, and TDR-TB are problematic. Apart from the genomics studies various proteomics as well as bioinformatics studies regarding to the drug resistance tuberculosis were accumulated in the last decade (Jiang et al., 2007; Zhang and Yew, 2009; Sharma et al., 2010, 2014, 2015a,b, 2016a,b, 2017; Kumar et al., 2013; Lata et al., 2015a,b; Singh et al., 2015; Sharma and Bisht, 2016, 2017a,b,c;) and suggested the novel drug resistance mechanisms/markers/targets for potential therapeutics in near future. Proteomics and bioinformatics play a crucial role in the diagnostics and therapeutics against the emerging bad bug of tuberculosis. Apart from the expression proteomics studies cited above we have reported that Rv0148 (Putative short-chain type dehydrogenase/reductase) and Rv3841 (ferritin protein) have potentially involved in aminoglycosides resistance (Sharma et al., 2015b, 2016a) and could be the potential diagnostics and therapeutics against the second line of drug resistance. To combat these worsened situations (MDR-TB, XDR-TB, and TDR-TB) new and effective drugs and diagnostics are urgently needed. However, as we know that development of new drugs and diagnostics are enormously expensive and time consuming process.

Repurposing and Revival of Drugs: A Chemotherapeutic Option against Drug Resistant Tuberculosis

Repurposing and revival of the drugs are the new trends/options or one of the pharmaceutical strategies to treat the particular disease that are already FDA approved for other diseases (Tsukamura, 1980; Van Deun et al., 2010) and also for tuberculosis earlier, in this antibiotics resistance era or in the situation of global emergency. Many compounds in TB advanced clinical trials are the molecules that were formerly used to treat other infectious diseases/tuberculosis earlier and now they have been repurposed for treatment of TB (Nayer and Steinbach, 1939; Tsukamura, 1980; Van Deun et al., 2010; Hasse et al., 2014).

Sulfonamides and sulphanilamide were first used in 1930s as an anti-TB drug (Nayer and Steinbach, 1939) but its use was discontinued due to its lesser efficacy as compared to first line drugs (streptomycin and isoniazid). Revival of sulfamethoxazole (SMX) in TB was first pointed out by its efficacy to prevent the TB infection in HIV patients whose receiving trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (TMP/SMX) to prevent other infection such as Pneumocystis jirovecii (Hasse et al., 2014). In a Nigerian trial study on patients of HIV-MDR-TB coinfetion, efficiency of MDR-TB treatment by TMP/SMX confirmed a significantly shorter time to sputum conversion in these patients (Oladimeji et al., 2014). Sulfadiazine is an anti-leprosy drug which is repurposed in the treatment of MDR-TB and XDR-TB. Brouqui et al. (2013) suggested that sulfadiazine regimen is safe and effective against MDR-TB and TDR-TB treatment (Ameen and Drancourt, 2013; Brouqui et al., 2013).

Clofazimine (CZM) is one of the repurposed molecules, has been initially used as an anti-leprosy drug since half the century. It was recently repurposed for managing the treatment of MDR-TB (Van Deun et al., 2010). CZM is recommended as a second-line anti-TB drug and used in combination with other anti-TB drugs for the treatment of drug-resistant tuberculosis. CZM-containing regimen can cure MDR-TB cases in 9–12 months. In M. tuberculosis, CZM appears to act as a prodrug, which is reduced by type 2-NADH dehydrogenase, to release reactive oxygen species (ROS) upon reoxidation by oxygen (O2) (Yano et al., 2011). CZM, exhibits noticeable anti-mycobacterial and anti-inflammatory activity by inhibition of phospholipase and effects on potassium transporters, respectively (Steele et al., 1999; Cholo et al., 2006). Previous published studies have reported that CZM has good quality efficacy and little toxicity against drug-resistant mycobacterial strains in animal models, which suggested, CZM as a promising anti-TB drug for the management of MDR-TB (Van Deun et al., 2010; Cholo et al., 2012). Recently, numerous observational studies have reported that CZM including regimens provided a useful role in the treatment of patients with MDR-TB (Cholo et al., 2006; Van Deun et al., 2010).

Linezolid, an oxazolidinone antibiotic which is used for treatment of gram-positive bacterial infections (Till et al., 2002; Yanagihara et al., 2002), has now potentially repurposed for the treatment of drug resistant TB (MDR-TB and XDR-TB) (Fortún et al., 2005). Linezolid is an effective anti-TB drug for treating MDR-TB and XDR-TB with various side effects such as neurotoxicity and hematologic toxicity (Tang et al., 2015). Schecter et al. (2010) suggested that linezolid had low rates of discontinuation, well tolerated and good efficacy in the treatment of MDR-TB. Most recently in a case study Jaspard et al. (2017) reported, bedaquiline and linezolid drug combination might be safe for XDR-TB in the late third trimester of pregnancy or pregnant woman. Pregnant woman gave birth to a child without abnormalities follow-up of the fetal showed that no fetal toxicities upto 2 years after the delivery (Jaspard et al., 2017).

Minocycline is also one of the repurposed molecules, has been initially used in the treatment of leprosy since the 1980s (Tsukamura, 1980). In 2008 it was repurposed for managing the treatment of XDR-TB patient in Japan (Kawada et al., 2008). Combinatorial therapy of amoxicillin/clavulanic acid along with other second-line drugs has been used in the treatment of MDR-TB. It’s cheaper cost and less toxicity has made the drug of choice in WHO group five drugs (Cassir et al., 2014). Recently, combinatorial treatment by amoxicillin/clavulanic acid and carbapenems has reduced the M. tuberculosis load (Diacon et al., 2016). Hugonnet et al. (2009) reported the in vitro activity of meropenem combined with clavulanate against XDR strains and paying attention to repurpose these beta-lactams as new anti-TB drugs (Hugonnet et al., 2009). However, carbapenems have been used successfully as part of salvage therapies for XDR patients, they have to be administered intravenously (Tiberi et al., 2016). Recently, an early bactericidal activity-Phase II (EBA Phase II) clinical trial has validated the promising potential of a carbapenem combined with amoxicillin and clavulanic acid for TB treatment (Diacon et al., 2016).

Singhal et al. (2014) reported that the FDA-approved antidiabetic drug metformin (MET) inhibits the intracellular mycobacterial growth by inducing mitochondrial ROS production, restricts disease immunopathology, enhances the efficacy of other anti-TB drugs and could be used as combinatorial therapy against the drug resistant tuberculosis. Gupta et al. (2013) suggested that tuberculosis treatment shortening by verapamil as an adjunctive therapy in mice has opened the direction for future research on verapamil and other efflux pump inhibitors in human tuberculosis. Gupta et al. (2014) also reported that efflux inhibition with verapamil tremendously decreases the MIC of bedaquiline and CZM to M. tuberculosis and suggested the synergistic effects of verapamil and bedaquiline in an animal model of TB infection. Recently Dutta et al. (2016) reported that statin a lipid-lowering drug (repurposed for TB treatment) when added to the first-line antitubercular drugs, reduces the lung bacillary burden in chronically infected mice.

Host-directed therapies are important adjunctive therapies for tuberculosis treatment that expanded by host immune effector mechanisms. Recently Gupta et al. (2017) showed that denileukin diftitox potentiates standard TB treatment in the mouse model, which might be due to depletion of T-regulatory and myeloid-derived suppressor cells during TB infection.

Synergistic Effects of Repurposed/Revived Drugs: With Others Anti-TB Drugs Used in Treatments of Tuberculosis Bad Bug

Synergistic effect of repurposed/revived drugs with other anti-TB drugs has been used for the future selection of these drugs in the WHO regimen which could be used in the treatment of MDR-TB, XDR-TB, and TDR-TB. In a study Zhang et al. (2015) suggested that CZM in combination with ethambutol (EMB) and moxifloxacin (MOX) may be a potential drug regimen for the treatment of MDR-TB. Synergistic effect of SMX has been reported in vitro with rifampicin (Macingwana et al., 2012). Tasneen et al. (2011) suggested CZM was the best third drug in combination with bedaquiline and pyrazinamide for the treatment of MDR-TB and a good example of drug synergism. Partial synergistic effect was oveserved between linezolid and capreomycin and suggested the efficacy of this combinatorial therapy against M. tuberculosis (Zhao et al., 2016). Most recently synergistic effect of bedaquiline and linezolid combinatorial therapy has been reported in XDR-TB of pregnant woman which is a good symbol of synergy for the last line of drugs (Jaspard et al., 2017). In a study synergistic effect carbapenems with rifampicin have been reported against M. tuberculosis (Kaushik et al., 2015).

Conclusion and Future Perspective

On the basis of the reported literature and studies (regarding to proteomics, bioinformatics, and repurposing/revival of drugs) cited above we suggest that proteomics and bioinformatics play a crucial role in the exploration of diagnostics, therapeutics and mechanism of resistance against drug resistance tuberculosis. Repurposing and revival of the drugs is an alternative strategy to combat from this inadequate situation of drug resistance tuberculosis in this antibiotic resistance era. Synergistic effect of repurposed/revived drugs (sulfamethoxazole, sulfadiazine, clofazimine, linezolid, minocycline, amoxicillin/clavulanic acid, and carbapenems like meropenem) along with the latest drugs (bedaquiline and delamanid) used in the treatment of MDR-TB and XDR-TB might be one of the promising combinatorial chemotherapy for the treatment of MDR-TB, XDR-TB, and TDR-TB. Synergistic effect of these repurposed/revived drugs with bedaquiline and delamanid combinatorial therapy could be added a different perspective over the existed literature.

Author Contributions

DS design the concept and wrote the manuscript. DS, YD, ND, and DB finalized the manuscript.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Director, NJIL & OMD for the support. DS is ICMR-PDFs (ICMR, New Delhi).

References

  1. Ameen S. M., Drancourt M. (2013). In vitro susceptibility of Mycobacterium tuberculosis to trimethoprim and sulfonamides in France. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 57 6370–6371. 10.1128/AAC.01683-13 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Brouqui P., Aubry C., Million M., Drancourt M., Raoult D. (2013). Totally resistant tuberculosis: Will antileprosy drugs be helpful? Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 42 584–585. 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2013.08.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Cambau E., Viveiros M., Machado D., Raskine L., Ritter C., Tortoli E., et al. (2015). Revisiting susceptibility testing in MDR-TB by a standardized quantitative phenotypic assessment in a European multicentre study. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 70 686–696. 10.1093/jac/dku438 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Cassir N., Rolain J. M., Brouqui P. (2014). A new strategy to fight antimicrobial resistance: the revival of old antibiotics. Front. Microbiol. 5:551. 10.3389/fmicb.2014.00551 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Cholo M., Boshoff H. I., Steel H. C., Cockeran R., Matlola N. M., Downing K. J., et al. (2006). Effects of clofazimine on potassium uptake by a Trk-deletion mutant of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 57 79–84. 10.1093/jac/dki409 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Cholo M. C., Steel H. C., Fourie P. B., Germishuizen W. A., Anderson R. (2012). Clofazimine: current status and future prospects. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 67 290–298. 10.1093/jac/dkr444 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Diacon A. H., van der Merwe L., Barnard M., von Groote-Bidlingmaier F., Lange C., García-Basteiro A. L., et al. (2016). beta-Lactams against Tuberculosis–new trick for an old dog? N. Engl. J. Med. 375 393–394. 10.1056/NEJMc1513236 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Dutta N. K., Bruiners N., Pinn M. L., Zimmerman M. D., Prideaux B., Dartois V., et al. (2016). Statin adjunctive therapy shortens the duration of TB treatment in mice. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 71 1570–1577. 10.1093/jac/dkw014 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Fortún J., Martín-Dávila P., Navas E., Pérez-Elías M. J., Cobo J., Tato M., et al. (2005). Linezolid for the treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 56 180–185. 10.1093/jac/dki148 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Gupta S., Cheung L., Pokkali S., Winglee K., Guo H., Murphy J. R., et al. (2017). Suppressor cell-depleting immunotherapy with denileukin diftitox is an effective host-directed therapy for tuberculosis. J. Infect. Dis. 215 1883–1887. 10.1093/infdis/jix208 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Gupta S., Cohen K. A., Winglee K., Maiga M., Diarra B., Bishai W. R. (2014). Efflux inhibition with verapamil potentiates bedaquiline in Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 58 574–576. 10.1128/AAC.01462-13 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Gupta S., Tyagi S., Almeida D. V., Maiga M. C., Ammerman N. C., Bishai W. R. (2013). Acceleration of tuberculosis treatment by adjunctive therapy with verapamil as an efflux inhibitor. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 188 600–607. 10.1164/rccm.201304-0650OC [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Hasse B., Walker A. S., Fehr J., Furrer H., Hoffmann M., Battegay M., et al. (2014). Cotrimoxazole prophylaxis is associated with reduced risk of incident tuberculosis in participants in the Swiss HIV Cohort Study. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 58 2363–2368. 10.1128/AAC.01868-13 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Hugonnet J. E., Tremblay L. W., Boshoff H. I., Barry C. E., III, Blanchard J. S. (2009). Meropenem-clavulanate is effective against extensively drug-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Science 323 1215–1218. 10.1126/science.1167498 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Jaspard M., Elefant-Amoura E., Melonio I., De Montgolfier I., Veziris N., Caumes E. (2017). Bedaquiline and linezolid for extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis in pregnant woman. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 23 1731–1732. 10.3201/eid2310.161398 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Jiang X., Zhang W., Gao F., Huang Y., Lv C., Wang H. (2007). Comparison of the proteome of isoniazid-resistant and -susceptible strains of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Microb. Drug Resist. 12 231–238. 10.1089/mdr.2006.12.231 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Kaushik A., Makkar N., Pandey P., Parrish N., Singh U., Lamichhane G. (2015). Carbapenems and rifampin exhibit synergy against Mycobacterium tuberculosis and Mycobacterium abscessus. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 59 6561–6567. 10.1128/AAC.01158-15 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Kawada H., Yamazato M., Shinozawa Y., Suzuki K., Otani S., Ouchi M., et al. (2008). Achievement of sputum culture negative conversion by minocycline in a case with extensively drug-resistant pulmonary tuberculosis. Kekkaku 83 725–728. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Kumar B., Sharma D., Sharma P., Katoch V. M., Venkatesan K., Bisht D. (2013). Proteomic analysis of Mycobacterium tuberculosis isolates resistant to kanamycin and amikacin. J. Proteomics 94 68–77. 10.1016/j.jprot.2013.08.025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Lata M., Sharma D., Deo N., Tiwari P. K., Bisht D., Venkatesan K. (2015a). Proteomic analysis of ofloxacin-mono resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis isolates. J. Proteomics 127 114–121. 10.1016/j.jprot.2015.07.031 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Lata M., Sharma D., Kumar B., Deo N., Tiwari P. K., Bisht D., et al. (2015b). Proteome analysis of ofloxacin and moxifloxacin induced Mycobacterium tuberculosis isolates by proteomic approach. Protein Pept. Lett. 22 362–371. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Macingwana L., Baker B., Ngwane A. H., Harper C., Cotton M. F., Hesseling A., et al. (2012). Sulfamethoxazole enhances the antimycobacterial activity of rifampicin. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 67 2908–2911. 10.1093/jac/dks306 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Nayer H., Steinbach M. (1939). Sulfanilamide in clinical tuberculosis. Am. Rev. Tuberc. 40 470–472. [Google Scholar]
  24. Oladimeji O., Isaakidis P., Obasanya O. J., Eltayeb O., Khogali M., Van den Bergh R., et al. (2014). Intensive-phase treatment outcomes among hospitalized multidrug-resistant tuberculosis patients: results from a nationwide cohort in Nigeria. PLOS ONE 9:e94393. 10.1371/journal.pone.0094393 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Schecter G. F., Scott C., True L., Raftery A., Flood J., Mase S. (2010). Linezolid in the treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis. Clin. Infect. Dis. 50 49–55. 10.1086/648675 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Sharma D., Bisht D. (2016). An efficient and rapid lipophilic proteins extraction from Mycobacterium tuberculosis H37Rv for two dimensional gel electrophoresis. Electrophoresis 37 1187–1190. 10.1002/elps.201600025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Sharma D., Bisht D. (2017a). Secretory proteome analysis of streptomycin resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis clinical isolates. SLAS Discov. 22 1229–1238. 10.1177/2472555217698428 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Sharma D., Bisht D. (2017b). M. tuberculosis hypothetical proteins and proteins of unknown function: Hope for exploring novel resistance mechanisms as well as future target of drug resistance. Front. Microbiol. 8:465. 10.3389/fmicb.2017.00465 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Sharma D., Bisht D. (2017c). Role of bacterioferritin & ferritin in M. tuberculosis pathogenesis and drug resistance: a future perspective by interactomic approach. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 7:240 10.3389/fcimb.2017.00240 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Sharma D., Deo N., Bisht D. (2017). Proteomics and bioinformatics: a modern way to elucidate the resistome in Mycobacterium tuberculosis. J. Proteomics Bioinform. 10:e33 10.4172/jpb.1000e33 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Sharma D., Kumar B., Lata M., Joshi B., Venkatesan K., Shukla S., et al. (2015a). Comparative proteomic analysis of aminoglycosides resistant and susceptible Mycobacterium tuberculosis clinical isolates for exploring potential drug targets. PLOS ONE 10:e0139414. 10.1371/journal.pone.0139414 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Sharma D., Lata M., Faheem M., Khan A. U., Joshi B., Venkatesan K., et al. (2015b). Cloning, expression and correlation of Rv0148 to amikacin & kanamycin resistance. Curr. Proteomics 12 96–100. 10.2174/157016461202150903113053 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Sharma D., Lata M., Faheem M., Khan A. U., Joshi B., Venkatesan K., et al. (2016a). M. tuberculosis ferritin (Rv3841): potential involvement in Amikacin (AK) & Kanamycin (KM) resistance. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 478 908–912. 10.1016/j.bbrc.2016.08.049 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Sharma D., Lata M., Singh R., Deo N., Venkatesan K., Bisht D. (2016b). Cytosolic proteome profiling of aminoglycosides resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis clinical isolates using MALDI-TOF/MS. Front. Microbiol. 7:1816. 10.3389/fmicb.2016.01816 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Sharma D., Shankar H., Lata M., Joshi B., Venkatesan K., Bisht D. (2014). Culture filtrate proteome analysis of aminoglycoside resistant clinical isolates of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. BMC Infect. Dis. 14(Suppl.):60 10.1186/1471-2334-14-S3-P60 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Sharma P., Kumar B., Gupta Y., Singhal N., Katoch V. M., Venkatesan K., et al. (2010). Proteomic analysis of streptomycin resistant and sensitive clinical isolates of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Proteome Sci. 8:59. 10.1186/1477-5956-8-59 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Singh A., Gopinath K., Sharma P., Bisht D., Sharma P., Singh N., et al. (2015). Comparative proteomic analysis of sequential isolates of Mycobacterium tuberculosis from a patient with pulmonary tuberculosis turning from drug sensitive to multidrug resistant. Indian J. Med. Res. 141 27–45. 10.4103/0971-5916.154492 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Singhal A., Jie L., Kumar P., Hong G. S., Leow M. K., Paleja B., et al. (2014). Metformin as adjunct antituberculosis therapy. Sci. Transl. Med. 6:263ra159. 10.1126/scitranslmed.3009885 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Steele H., Matlola N. M., Anderson R. (1999). Inhibition of potassium transport and growth of mycobacteria exposed to clofazimine and B669 is associated with a calcium-independent increase in microbial phospholipase A2 activity. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 44 209–216. 10.1093/jac/44.2.209 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Tang S., Yao L., Hao X., Zhang X., Liu G., Liu X., et al. (2015). Efficacy, safety and tolerability of linezolid for the treatment of XDR-TB: a study in China. Eur. Respir. J. 45 161–170. 10.1183/09031936.00035114 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Tasneen R., Li S., Peloquin C., Taylor D., Williams K., Andries K., et al. (2011). Sterilizing activity of novel TMC207- and PA-824-containing regimens in a murine model of tuberculosis. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 55 5485–5492. 10.1128/AAC.05293-11 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Tiberi S., D’Ambrosio L., De Lorenzo S., Viggiani P., Centis R., Sotgiu G., et al. (2016). Ertapenem in the treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis: first clinical experience. Eur. Respir. J. 47 333–336. 10.1183/13993003.01278-2015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Till M., Wixson R. L., Pertel P. E. (2002). Linezolid treatment for osteomyelitis due to vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium. Clin. Infect. Dis. 34 1412–1414. 10.1086/340265 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Tsukamura M. (1980). In-vitro antimycobacterial activity of minocycline. Tubercle 61 37–38. 10.1016/0041-3879(80)90058-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Van Deun A., Maug A. K., Salim M. A., Das P. K., Sarker M. R., Daru P., et al. (2010). Short, highly effective, and inexpensive standardized treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 182 684–692. 10.1164/rccm.201001-0077OC [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. WHO (2016). Global Tuberculosis Control 2016. Available at: http://www.who.int/tb/publications/global_report/en/ [Google Scholar]
  47. Yanagihara K., Kaneko Y., Sawai T., Miyazaki Y., Tsukamoto K., Hirakata Y., et al. (2002). Efficacy of linezolid against methicillin-resistant or vancomycin-insensitive Staphylococcus aureus in a model of hematogenous pulmonary infection. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 46 3288–3291. 10.1128/AAC.46.10.3288-3291.2002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Yano T., Kassovska-Bratinova S., The J. S., Winkler J., Sullivan K., Isaacs A., et al. (2011). Reduction of clofazimine by mycobacterial type 2 NADH:quinone oxidoreductase: a pathway for the generation of bactericidal levels of reactive oxygen species. J. Biol. Chem. 286 10276–10287. 10.1074/jbc.M110.200501 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Zhang Y., Yew W. W. (2009). Mechanisms of drug resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Int. J. Tuberc. Lung Dis. 13 1320–1330. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Zhang Z., Li T., Qu G., Pang Y., Zhao Y. (2015). In vitro synergistic activity of clofazimine and other antituberculous drugs against multidrug-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis isolates. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 45 71–75. 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2014.09.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Zhao W., Zheng M., Wang B., Mu X., Li P., Fu L., et al. (2016). Interactions of linezolid and second-line anti-tuberculosis agents against multidrug-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis in vitro and in vivo. Int. J. Infect. Dis. 52 23–28. 10.1016/j.ijid.2016.08.027 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Frontiers in Microbiology are provided here courtesy of Frontiers Media SA

RESOURCES