Literature DB >> 15656698

Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modelling of antibacterials in vitro and in vivo using bacterial growth and kill kinetics: the minimum inhibitory concentration versus stationary concentration.

Johan W Mouton1, Alexander A Vinks.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) is the in vitro reference value to describe the activity of an antibacterial against micro-organisms. It does not represent the dynamic effect of the antimicrobial at any point in time, but rather the total antimicrobial effect over the incubation period at a fixed concentration.
OBJECTIVE: To explore the concentration-effect relationship of antimicrobial concentrations against micro-organisms in relation to the MIC.
METHODS: Time-kill curves were generated for ceftazidime, meropenem and tobramycin against Pseudomonas aeruginosa. The Hill equation with variable slope was fit to the time-kill data, and mathematical models of growth and kill were explored with reference to the MIC.
RESULTS: With declining concentrations, bacterial killing will decrease until a specific threshold concentration is reached. This concentration, at which bacteria are neither killed nor able to grow, is named the stationary concentration (SC) and is not equal to the MIC. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic simulations over a range of kill rates, growth rates and slope factors showed that for beta-lactam antibacterials, the SC is close to the MIC value, which may explain why concentrations in vivo need to be above the MIC, while regrowth of bacteria occurs when concentrations decline below the MIC. For concentration-dependent antibacterials, such as aminoglycosides and quinolones, the SC is shown to be markedly different from the MIC and, in general, is much lower.
CONCLUSION: The MIC is not a good pharmacodynamic parameter to characterise the concentration effect relationship of a given antimicrobial. For 'concentration independent' antimicrobials the SC is likely to be close to the MIC, but may be much lower for 'concentration dependent' antimicrobials, and may explain sub-MIC effects.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15656698     DOI: 10.2165/00003088-200544020-00005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet        ISSN: 0312-5963            Impact factor:   5.577


  14 in total

1.  Standardization of pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) terminology for anti-infective drugs.

Authors:  Johan W Mouton; Michael N Dudley; Otto Cars; Hartmut Derendorf; George L Drusano
Journal:  Int J Antimicrob Agents       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 5.283

2.  Alteration of postantibiotic effect during one dosing interval of tobramycin, simulated in an in vitro pharmacokinetic model.

Authors:  J G den Hollander; J W Mouton; M P van Goor; F P Vleggaar; H A Verbrugh
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  1996-03       Impact factor: 5.191

3.  Comparisons between antimicrobial pharmacodynamic indices and bacterial killing as described by using the Zhi model.

Authors:  S Corvaisier; P H Maire; M Y Bouvier d'Yvoire; X Barbaut; N Bleyzac; R W Jelliffe
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  1998-07       Impact factor: 5.191

4.  Antibacterial activity of four cephalosporins in an experimental infection in relation to in vitro effect and pharmacokinetics.

Authors:  H Mattie; A M van Dokkum; L Brus-Weijer; A M Krul; E van Strijen
Journal:  J Infect Dis       Date:  1990-09       Impact factor: 5.226

5.  Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modeling of activity of ceftazidime during continuous and intermittent infusion.

Authors:  J W Mouton; A A Vinks; N C Punt
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  1997-04       Impact factor: 5.191

6.  Pharmacodynamics of penicillin are unaffected by bacterial growth phases of Streptococcus pneumoniae in the mouse peritonitis model.

Authors:  J D Knudsen; N Frimodt-Møller; F Espersen
Journal:  J Antimicrob Chemother       Date:  1998-04       Impact factor: 5.790

7.  Correction for bacterial loss in in vitro dilution models.

Authors:  C A White; R D Toothaker; A L Smith; J T Slattery
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  1987-11       Impact factor: 5.191

8.  Microbial pharmacodynamics of piperacillin in neutropenic mice of systematic infection due to Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

Authors:  J G Zhi; C H Nightingale; R Quintiliani
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Biopharm       Date:  1988-08

Review 9.  Phenotypic tolerance: the search for beta-lactam antibiotics that kill nongrowing bacteria.

Authors:  E Tuomanen
Journal:  Rev Infect Dis       Date:  1986 Jul-Aug

10.  Kinetics of antimicrobial activity.

Authors:  B Vogelman; W A Craig
Journal:  J Pediatr       Date:  1986-05       Impact factor: 4.406

View more
  46 in total

1.  Population dynamics of antibiotic treatment: a mathematical model and hypotheses for time-kill and continuous-culture experiments.

Authors:  Bruce R Levin; Klas I Udekwu
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2010-06-01       Impact factor: 5.191

2.  Mechanism-based pharmacodynamic models of fluoroquinolone resistance in Staphylococcus aureus.

Authors:  Philip Chung; Patrick J McNamara; Jeffrey J Campion; Martin E Evans
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 5.191

3.  Effect of treatment duration on pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic indices correlating with therapeutic efficacy of ceftazidime in experimental Klebsiella pneumoniae lung infection.

Authors:  Irma A J M Bakker-Woudenberg; Marian T ten Kate; Wil H F Goessens; Johan W Mouton
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 5.191

4.  Integration of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic indices of marbofloxacin in turkeys.

Authors:  Aneliya Milanova Haritova; Nikolina Velizarova Rusenova; Parvan Rusenov Parvanov; Lubomir Dimitrov Lashev; Johanna Fink-Gremmels
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2006-08-28       Impact factor: 5.191

5.  Pharmacodynamic model to describe the concentration-dependent selection of cefotaxime-resistant Escherichia coli.

Authors:  Sara K Olofsson; Patricia Geli; Dan I Andersson; Otto Cars
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 5.191

6.  Relationship between minimum inhibitory concentration and stationary concentration revisited: growth rates and minimum bactericidal concentrations.

Authors:  Johan W Mouton; Alexander A Vinks
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 6.447

7.  Colistin methanesulfonate is an inactive prodrug of colistin against Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

Authors:  Phillip J Bergen; Jian Li; Craig R Rayner; Roger L Nation
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 5.191

8.  Functional relationship between bacterial cell density and the efficacy of antibiotics.

Authors:  Klas I Udekwu; Nicholas Parrish; Peter Ankomah; Fernando Baquero; Bruce R Levin
Journal:  J Antimicrob Chemother       Date:  2009-02-13       Impact factor: 5.790

9.  Concentration-effect relationship of ceftazidime explains why the time above the MIC is 40 percent for a static effect in vivo.

Authors:  Johan W Mouton; Nieko Punt; Alexander A Vinks
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2007-06-18       Impact factor: 5.191

10.  Development and qualification of a pharmacodynamic model for the pronounced inoculum effect of ceftazidime against Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

Authors:  Jürgen B Bulitta; Neang S Ly; Jenny C Yang; Alan Forrest; William J Jusko; Brian T Tsuji
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2008-10-13       Impact factor: 5.191

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.