Abstract

The distinction between bactericidal and bacteriostatic agents appears to be clear according to the in vitro definition, but this only applies under strict laboratory conditions and is inconsistent for a particular agent against all bacteria. The distinction is more arbitrary when agents are categorized in clinical situations. The supposed superiority of bactericidal agents over bacteriostatic agents is of little relevance when treating the vast majority of infections with gram-positive bacteria, particularly in patients with uncomplicated infections and noncompromised immune systems. Bacteriostatic agents (e.g., chloramphenicol, clindamycin, and linezolid) have been effectively used for treatment of endocarditis, meningitis, and osteomyelitis--indications that are often considered to require bactericidal activity. Although bacteriostatic/bactericidal data may provide valuable information on the potential action of antibacterial agents in vitro, it is necessary to combine this information with pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data to provide more meaningful prediction of efficacy in vivo. The ultimate guide to treatment of any infection must be clinical outcome.

Keywords

MedicineLinezolidAntibioticsClindamycinAntibacterial agentPharmacodynamicsMicrobiologyIntensive care medicineBacteriaPharmacokineticsPharmacologyBiologyVancomycinStaphylococcus aureus

MeSH Terms

Anti-Bacterial AgentsGram-Positive BacteriaGram-Positive Bacterial InfectionsHumansTreatment Outcome

Affiliated Institutions

Related Publications

Publication Info

Year
2004
Type
review
Volume
38
Issue
6
Pages
864-870
Citations
1103
Access
Closed

Social Impact

Social media, news, blog, policy document mentions

Citation Metrics

1103
OpenAlex
63
Influential
894
CrossRef

Cite This

George A. Pankey, L. D. Sabath (2004). Clinical Relevance of Bacteriostatic versus Bactericidal Mechanisms of Action in the Treatment of Gram‐Positive Bacterial Infections. Clinical Infectious Diseases , 38 (6) , 864-870. https://doi.org/10.1086/381972

Identifiers

DOI
10.1086/381972
PMID
14999632

Data Quality

Data completeness: 86%