The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Point: Vancomycin Is Not Obsolete for the Treatment of Infection Caused by Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus
Abstract
Since the discovery, development, and US Food and Drug Administration approval of vancomycin in the 1950s, this agent has remained a mainstay for the treatment of infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). However, because of the development of new antistaphylococcal antibiotics and reports of vancomycin failures, the utility of vancomycin has recently been questioned. Although vancomycin did not undergo the strict US Food and Drug Administration approval process that is in place today to demonstrate efficacy, there is considerable information available that sheds light on the role vancomycin has in infectious diseases pharmacotherapy today. In addition, although we look to in vitro susceptibility testing to assess vancomycin activity against S. aureus, we have come to appreciate that resistance of S. aureus to vancomycin can be a continuous--rather than a categorical--phenomenon. This has resulted in clinical microbiology laboratories having difficulty identifying S. aureus that may not respond to conventional doses of vancomycin. A better understanding is needed of the pharmacodynamic relationship between vancomycin and MRSA as relates to optimal dosing strategies, including consideration for loading doses, and development of rational categorical breakpoints for susceptibility based on clinical outcomes. By better understanding these critical issues, it may be possible to optimize the use of vancomycin, resulting in a cost-effective treatment option for many patients infected with MRSA.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
David, M. Z., & Daum, R. S. (2010) · Clinical Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1128/cmr.00081-09 · Cited by 1,972
Rybak, M., Lomaestro, B., Rotschafer, J. C., Moellering, R., Craig, W., Billeter, M., Dalovisio, J. R., & Levine, D. P. (2009) · American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy · doi:10.2146/ajhp080434 · Cited by 1,795
Rybak, M. J., Le, J., Lodise, T. P., Levine, D. P., Bradley, J. S., Liu, C., Mueller, B. A., Pai, M. P., Wong-Beringer, A., Rotschafer, J. C., et al. (2020) · American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy · doi:10.1093/ajhp/zxaa036 · Cited by 1,202
Predictors of Mortality in Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia
van Hal, S. J., Jensen, S. O., Vaska, V. L., Espedido, B. A., Paterson, D. L., & Gosbell, I. B. (2012) · Clinical Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1128/cmr.05022-11 · Cited by 932
The Surgical Infection Society Revised Guidelines on the Management of Intra-Abdominal Infection
Mazuski, J. E., Tessier, J. M., May, A. K., Sawyer, R. G., Nadler, E. P., Rosengart, M. R., Chang, P. K., O'Neill, P. J., Mollen, K. P., Huston, J. M., et al. (2017) · Surgical Infections · doi:10.1089/sur.2016.261 · Cited by 573
Metadata
- Authors
- Mohr, J. F., & Murray, B. E.
- Venue
- Clinical Infectious Diseases
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2007-06-15
- Volume
- 44
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1536-1542
- ISSN
- 1058-4838 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-6591
- OpenAlex
- W2163807899
- Cited by
- 185
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 15.47
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Point: Vancomycin Is Not Obsolete for the Treatment of Infection Caused by Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/518451
- The paper
- Mohr, J. F., & Murray, B. E. (2007). Point: Vancomycin Is Not Obsolete for the Treatment of Infection Caused by Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Clinical Infectious Diseases. https://doi.org/10.1086/518451
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.