Table 1.
The inhibitory concentration of Epetraborole against Burkholderia pseudomallei.
Fig 1.
Epetroborale activity in ex vivo model of infection.
Epetraborole (EBO) was evaluated against B. pseudomallei 1026b alone and in combination with ceftazidime at 4 mg/mL (EBO + CAZ). Ceftazidime (CAZ) was included as a comparative control. Growth inhibition was determined over a 0.25 to 8 μg/mL.epetraborole (EBO) concentration series For the combination treatment group, data points for 8, 4, 2, 1, 0.5 μg/mL are all significantly different from the untreated (0 μg/mL), and those data points are not significantly different from one another. All comparison analyses was performed with ANOVA.
Fig 2.
Efficacy of epetraborole in the acute B.
pseudomallei animal infection model. Bacterial burdens in the lung (A, C, E) and spleen (B, D, F) during treatment with epetraborole delivered subcutaneously (A, B), orally (C, D), or in combination (E, F) compared to untreated control mouse organ burdens at 60h endpoint. Lower level of detection is indicated by dotted lines.
Table 2.
Epetraborole murine pharmacokinetic parameters.
Fig 3.
Delayed dosing with epetraborole against clinically derived B. pseudomallei strain.
Dosing schedule of treatments in the delayed B. pseudomallei animal infection model (A). Bacterial burdens in the lung (B) and spleen (C) resulting from delayed treatment with CAZ and EBO delivered subcutaneously (SC), and intraperitoneally (IP), alone or in combination. Lower level of detection is indicated by dotted lines. Created with BioRender.