Skip to main content
Revista Española de Quimioterapia logoLink to Revista Española de Quimioterapia
. 2019 Sep 27;32(5):465–468.

In vitro study of synergy of ampicillin with ceftriaxone against Listeria monocytogenes

Estudio in vitro de la sinergia de ampicilina con ceftriaxona frente a Listeria monocytogenes

José Antonio Lepe 1,, Ángel Rodríguez-Villodres 1, Guillermo Martín-Gutiérrez 1, Rafael Luque 1, Javier Aznar 1
PMCID: PMC6790883  PMID: 31515975

ABSTRACT

Objectives

To evaluate if the in vitro activity of ampicillin increases when combined with ceftriaxone.

Material and methods

The activity of ampicillin and ceftriaxone was evaluated against six Listeria monocytogenes invasive clinical isolates. Ampicillin and ceftriaxone MICs were determined by the broth microdilution method. Synergy was evaluated by checkerboard and time-kill curves methods.

Results

. All six L. monocytogenes strains were susceptible to ampicillin (MICs 0.25-0.5 mg/L). A bacteriostatic synergy was demonstrated by the FIC index of 0.5 and a 2.5 log10 CFU reduction on the six strains studied for MIC ampicillin plus 16 mg/L ceftriaxone concentrations.

Conclusions

The association of ceftriaxone with ampicillin increases the in vitro activity of ampicillin, and therefore could be a valuable option in the treatment of invasive infection by L. monocytogenes.

Keywords: ceftriaxone, ampicillin, synergy, Listeria, CNS

INTRODUCTION

Invasive infection by Listeria monocytogenes presents a high mortality [1], which could be attributed to that the disease usually affects patients who present malignancies or immunosuppressive comorbidities [2, 3], together with that the penicillins have no bactericidal activity against L. monocytogenes [4, 5]. Based on the above, the enhancement of the bactericidal effect of ampicillin could play an important role in the success of the antimicrobial treatment, mainly when the infection affects the Central Nervous System (CNS), where ampicillin levels can be very variable and could be close to peri-MIC values along the dose interval [6, 7].

Recent studies have shown the effectiveness of ampicillin-ceftriaxone combination for the treatment of endocarditis due to Enterococcus faecalis [8]. L. monocytogenes and E. faecalis share some characteristics regarding their antibiotic susceptibility, such as the activity of ampicillin is bacteriostatic, and they are both resistant to ceftriaxone. The previous antibiotic combination could be also effective against L. monocytogenes improving the bactericidal activity of ampicillin.

The main objective of this study is to explore the possibility that ampicillin in combination with ceftriaxone could increase its bactericidal activity, which could bring advantages in the treatment of invasive diseases, mainly at the CNS level.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Bacterial isolates. The activity of ampicillin and ceftriaxone was evaluated against six L. monocytogenes invasive clinical isolates belonging to different PFGE types and serotypes: 2 isolates 1/2a (LMP62 y LMP52), 2 isolates 1/2b (LMP22 y LMP42), and 2 isolates 4b (LMP43 y LMP36), which were isolated from CSF samples.

Antimicrobial susceptibility testing. MICs of ampicillin and ceftriaxone were determined by the broth microdilution method in cation-adjusted Mueller Hinton broth with 5% lysed horse blood (CAMHB-LHB) based on The Clinical & Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) criteria [9].

Synergy studies. Static synergy was evaluated by the checkerboard assay in CAMHB-LHB in accordance to the American Society for Microbiology recommendations [10]. The assays were performed in duplicate on all 6 strains, twofold serial dilutions of ampicillin (0,015-8 mg/L) and ceftriaxone (0,25-128 mg/L) were individually tested and in all possible combinations of drug concentrations. Checkerboard synergy and non-synergy were defined by the fractional inhibitory concentration index (FICI): FICI ≤0.5 defined as synergy and FICI >0.5 as non-synergy (>0.5 to ≤1: additive and >1 to ≤4: indifference) [11].

The dynamic synergy was studied by time-killing curves in CAMHB-LHB according to CLSI methodology [12]. The assays were performed in duplicate on all 6 strains in the presence of ampicillin and ceftriaxone concentrations, alone and in combination, previously identified as synergistic by the checkerboard assay. Bacterial counts were determined in duplicate at 3, 6 and 24 hours of incubation. Synergy was defined as a 2-log10 decrease in the colony count at 24h with the combination compared to that of the most active single agent [13].

Killing-curves were modeled and studied by GraphPadPrism 5.0 software (© 2014 GraphPad Software. Inc), using mean (+/- S.D.) values.

RESULTS

All six L. monocytogenes strains were susceptible to ampicillin with MICs values ranging from 0.25-0.5 mg/L and the ceftriaxone MIC value was 64 mg/L in all three strains tested (table 1).

Table 1.

Antibiotic susceptibility of L. monocytogenes strains to ampicillin (AMP) and ceftriaxone (CAX) by the microdilution and checkerboard methods.

Microdilution Method Checkerboard Assay
MIC (mg/L) MIC (mg/L) FIC index
Strains AMP AMP+CAX CAX CAX+AMP Value Interpretation
1/2a LMP22 0.25 0.06 64 16 0.49 Synergism
0.25 0.125 64 8 0.62 Additive
1/2a LMP42 0.5 0.125 64 16 0.49 Synergism
0.5 0.25 64 8 0,62 Additive
1/2b LMP53 0.25 0.06 64 16 0.49 Synergism
0.25 0.125 64 8 0.62 Additive
1/2b LMP62 0.25 0.06 64 16 0.49 Synergism
0.25 0.125 64 8 0.62 Additive
4b LMP38 0.5 0.125 64 16 0.49 Synergism
0.5 0.25 64 8 0.62 Additive
4b LMP43 0.5 0.125 64 16 0.49 Synergism
0.5 0.25 64 8 0.62 Additive

A bacteriostatic synergy effect of ampicillin association with ceftriaxone was demonstrated by checkerboard and time-killing curves methods.

-Checkerboard assay: a bacteriostatic synergy was observed with FIC index values of 0.49, was observed when the MIC concentrations of ampicillin are combined with a concentration of 16 mg/L of ceftriaxone. For lower ceftriaxone concentrations, the effect was additive (4-8 mg/L) or indifferent (≤2 mg/L) (table 1).

-Time-kill assay: a bacteriostatic synergy was observed at MIC concentrations of ampicillin plus 16 mg/L concentration of ceftriaxone, demonstrating that the association produces a log10 CFU reduction of 2.5 for the six strains studied taken as a whole; from 6.5 (95% CI: 6.2-6.8) at ampicillin MIC concentration alone to 4 (95% CI: 3.7-4.3) when combined with ceftriaxone 16 mg/L (figure 1).

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Log10 reduction (mean and SD) of bacterial growth of L. monocytogenes obtained by time-killing curves with: 1xMIC concentration of ampicillin (AMP), 16 mg/L of ceftriaxone (CAX), and the combination of both antibiotics (AMP+CAX) against six strains studied taken as a whole.

DISCUSSION

The results obtained from this in vitro study demonstrated a synergistic effect among ampicillin and 16 mg/L of ceftriaxone against L. monocytogenes. This effect could be related to a complementary inhibition of penicillin-binding proteins (PBP) by ceftriaxone, that would enhance the ampicillin killing. In general, cephalosporins are a good inhibitor of PBP1, PBP2 and PBP4 in L. monocytogenes [14] and the optimal killing by beta-lactams is achieved only when several of the different PBPs are blocked [6]. A partial synergistic effect has been previously reported using ceftriaxone concentrations of 1-4 mg/L, lower than those of this study of 16 mg/L, which could explain their lack of more conclusive results in these studies [15, 16].

To define the clinical relevance of these in vitro results can be difficult. However, from this study derive a series of considerations that could support its use in clinical practice.

This synergistic effect significantly improves the activity of ampicillin, very desirable aspect in the treatment of septic patients with underlying disease.

This combination may have pharmacokinetics advantages over the recommended ampicillin plus gentamicin association in invasive listeriosis [17], since gentamicin does not penetrate the CNS to achieve therapeutically useful concentrations. Based on the above, this combination does not provide a definite clinical advantage over an aminopenicillin alone [18]. In addition, ceftriaxone is one of the cephalosporins with better intracellular penetration within phagocytic cells (30 to 40%), while aminoglycosides although they show an effective and rapid extracellular destruction, are not active intracellularly [19].

Ceftriaxone levels of 16 mg/L can be achieved in CSF. Even though ceftriaxone penetrates poorly into CSF with uninflamed meninges, clinical experience clearly shows that the drug diffuses well into the CSF of patients with bacterial meningitis, after a single 100 mg/kg dose, at two hours after dosing, mean CSF concentrations were 20 mg/L [20]. In another study, in patients with meningitis, the levels ranged from 0.85 to 18.29 mg/L for 4 g/day ceftriaxone dose [21]. Also, the French guideline for meningitis treatment, unlike the American and European guidelines, recommends the prescription of a high concentrations of ceftriaxone (100 mg/kg/day) without limitation of the dose [22]. Although these studies show a certain inter-individual variability, many patients could benefit from this window of high concentration of ceftriaxone, which could suppose a not expected therapeutic advantage in many patients.

The combination is safe from the clinical point of view, since the ceftriaxone plus ampicillin (and vancomycin) association is the recommended empirical treatment of meningitis in people older than 50 years. [23]. In addition, empirical therapy with cephalosporins does not affect the clinical outcome of patients with Listeria meningitis when ampicillin was subsequently added to treatment [24].

In conclusion, our results demonstrate that the association of ceftriaxone with ampicillin increases the activity of ampicillin, and therefore could be a valuable option in the treatment of invasive infection by L. monocytogenes, especially when the CNS is compromised. Animal models and clinical studies should have to evaluate whether ceftriaxone associated with ampicillin offers a real and successful alternative of listeriosis treatment.

FUNDING

None to declare.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest

References

  • 1.Charlier C, Perrodeau É, Leclercq A, Cazenave B, Pilmis B, Henry B et al. Clinical features and prognostic factors of listeriosis: the MONALISA national prospective cohort study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2017;17:510-519. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(16)30521-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Ramsakal A, Nadaminti H, Field T, Vincent AL, Greene J, Dass VL et al. Listeria infections in cancer patients. Infect Med 2004; 21:345-9. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Allerberger F, Wagner M. Listeriosis: a resurgent foodborne infec-tion. Clin Microbiol Infect 2010; 16:16–23. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2009.03109.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Hof H. Therapeutic activities of antibiotics in listeriosis. Infection 1991;19 (suppl. 4): S229-33. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Marget W, Seeliger HPR. Listeria monocytogenes: therapeutic pos-sibilities and problems. Infection 1988; 16 (suppl. 2): 175-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Hof H, Nichterlein T, Kretschmar M. Management of listeriosis. Clin Microbiol Rev 1997; 10:345–57. PMid: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Chanteux H, Mingeot-Leclercq MP, Sonveaux E, Van Bambeke F, Tulkens PM. Intracellular accumulation and activity of ampicillin used as free drug and as its phthalimidomethyl or pivaloylox-ymethyl ester (pivampicillin) against Listeria monocytogenes in J774 macrophages. J Antimicrob Chemother 2003; 5:610-5. doi: 10.1093/jac/dkg431 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Gavalda J, Torres C, Tenorio C, López P, Zaragoza M, Capdevila JA et al. Efficacy of ampicillin plus ceftriaxone in treatment of exper-imental endocarditis due to Enterococcus faecalis strains highly resistant to aminoglycosides. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1999; 43:639-46. PMid: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Methods for Antimicrobial Dilution and Disk Susceptibility Testing of Infrequently Isolated or Fastidious Bacteria-Third Edition: Approved Standard M45. CLSI, Wayne, PA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Garcia L. Synergism Testing: Broth Microdilution Checkerboard and Broth Macrodilution Methods. In: Leber AL, ed. Clinical Microbiolo-gy Procedures Handbook. Washington: ASM Press, 2010;140-62. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Odds FC. Synergy, antagonism, and what the chequerboard puts between them. J Antimicrob Chemother 2003; 52:1. doi: 10.1093/jac/dkg301 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Methods for Determining Bactericidal Activity of Antimicrobial Agents. Approved Standard M26-A. CLSI, Wayne, PA, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Eliopoulos GM, Moellering RC. Antimicrobial combinations. In: Lo-rian V. ed. Antibiotics in Laboratory Medicine. Baltimore: The Wil-liams & Wilkins Co, 1996;330-96. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Vicente MF, Perez-Díaz JC, Baquero F Angel de Pedro M, Berenguer J. Penicillin-binding protein 3 of Listeria monocytogenes as the pri-mary lethal target for beta-lactams. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1990; 34:539-42. doi: 10.1128/aac.34.4.539 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Hoogkamp-Korstanje JA. Activity of cefotaxime and ceftriaxone alone and in combination with penicillin, ampicillin and piperacillin against neonatal meningitis pathogens. J Antimicrob Chemother 1985; 16:327-34. doi: 10.1093/jac/16.3.327 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Kumaraswamy M, Do C, Sakoulas G, Tseng GW, King H. Listeria monocytogenes endocarditis: case report, review of the literature, and laboratory evaluation of potential novel antibiotic synergies. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2018; 51:468-78. doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimi-cag.2017.12.032. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Hof H. An update on the medical management of lister-iosis. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2004; 5:1727-35. doi: 10.1517/14656566.5.8.1727 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Hof H. Chemotherapy of Listeria infections. GMS Infect Dis. 2013; 1:1–10. doi: 10.3205/id000006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Kuhn H, Angehrn P, Havas L. Autoradiographic evidence for pen-etration of 3H-ceftriaxone (Rocephin) into cells of spleen, liv-er and kidney of mice. Chemotherapy. 1986;32:102-12. doi: 10.1159/000238398 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Scheld WM, Rocha H, Sande MA, Bryan JP. Rationale for clinical trials evaluating ceftriaxone in the therapy of bacterial meningitis. Am J Med. 1984;77(4C):42-9. PMid: [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Navas D, Deslandes G, Dailly E, Caillon A, Chiffoleau G, Potel V et al. Prescription of high dose of ceftriaxone for treatment of men-ingitis: is therapeutic drug monitoring useful? A cohort study. In: Abstracts of the European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, London, United Kingdom. Abstract P1614, p. 441. Clin Microbiol Infect 2012;18: 114-715. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Société de pathologie infectieuse de langue française (SPILF). Prac-tice guidelines for acute bacterial meningitidis (except newborn and nosocomial meningitis). Med Mal Infect 2009; 39:356-67. PMid: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Tunkel AR, Hartman BJ, Kaplan SL, Kaufman BA, Roos KL, Scheld WM et al. Practice guidelines for the management of bacterial meningitis. Clin Infect Dis. 2004;39:1267-84. doi: 10.1086/425368 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Cherubin CE, Appleman MD, Heseltine PN, Khayr W, Stratton CW. Epidemiological spectrum and current treatment of listeriosis. Rev Infect Dis 1991; 13:1108-14. doi: 10.1093/clinids/13.6.1108 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Revista Española de Quimioterapia are provided here courtesy of Sociedad Española de Quimioterapia

RESOURCES