Bactericidal versus bacteriostatic antibacterials: clinical significance, differences and synergistic potential in clinical practice

Abstract

Antibacterial activity can be classified as either bactericidal or bacteriostatic, using methods such as the MBC/MIC ratio and time-kill curves. However, such categorization has proven challenging in clinical practice, as these definitions only apply under specific laboratory conditions, which may differ from clinical settings. Several factors, such as the specific bacteria or infectious medium, can affect the action of antibiotics, with many antibacterials exerting both activities. These definitions have also led to the belief that bactericidal antibacterials are superior to bacteriostatic, especially in more severe cases, such as endocarditis, neutropenia and bacteraemia. Additionally, current dogma dictates against the combination of bactericidal and bacteriostatic antibacterials in clinical practice, due to potential antagonism. This review aimed to assess the differences in antibacterial activity of bactericidal and bacteriostatic antibacterials based on in vitro and in vivo studies and examine their antagonistic or synergistic effects. Our findings show that specific bacteriostatic agents, such as linezolid and tigecycline, are clinically non-inferior to bactericidals in multiple infections, including pneumonia, intra-abdominal infections, and skin and soft tissue infections. Studies also support using several bacteriostatic agents as salvage therapies in severe infections, such as neutropenic fever and endocarditis. Additionally, not all combinations of bacteriostatic and bactericidal agents appear to be antagonistic, with many combinations, such as linezolid and rifampicin, already being used. The findings should be interpreted with caution, as most evidence is from observational studies and there is a need for randomized controlled trials to assess their effectiveness and combinations, especially within the context of rising antimicrobial resistance.