Literature DB >> 1590685

Effect of protein binding in serum on therapeutic efficacy of cephem antibiotics.

S Tawara1, S Matsumoto, T Kamimura, S Goto.   

Abstract

The effect of protein binding in serum of eight cephem antibiotics (ceftazidime, ceftizoxime, cefotiam, cefmetazole, cefpiramide, cefazolin, cefuzonam, ceftriaxone) on their therapeutic efficacies was examined in mice with experimentally induced intraperitoneal infections or pneumonia. The relationship among therapeutic activity, in vitro antibacterial activity, total or free (unbound) levels in serum, and homogenized whole lung levels was investigated. In the intraperitoneal infection caused by Staphylococcus aureus or Klebsiella pneumoniae, the 50% effective doses (ED50s) of the cephem antibiotics correlated with the area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) values of free levels in serum and the MICs but not with those of total levels in serum. A linear relationship was seen between 1/ED50 values and AUC of free levels in serum/MIC values. On the other hand, in mice with pneumonia caused by K. pneumoniae, the number of bacteria in the lung closely correlated with the AUC of the antibiotic concentration in lung tissue. There was a direct correlation between the levels in lung tissue and total levels in serum but not free levels in serum. The cephem antibiotics tested in this study were bound only slightly to homogenates of mouse lung. These results indicate that the effect of protein binding in serum on therapeutic efficacy against intraperitoneal infection differs from that against pulmonary infection.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1590685      PMCID: PMC189219          DOI: 10.1128/AAC.36.1.17

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother        ISSN: 0066-4804            Impact factor:   5.191


  26 in total

1.  The Relation of Protein Binding to the Pharmacology and Antibacterial Activity of Penicillins X, G, Dihydro F, and K.

Authors:  R Tompsett; S Shultz; W McDermott
Journal:  J Bacteriol       Date:  1947-05       Impact factor: 3.490

2.  Protein binding and concentrations of cephaloridine and cefazolin in serum and interstitial fluid of dogs.

Authors:  N G Waterman; M J Raff; L Scharfenberger; P A Barnwell
Journal:  J Infect Dis       Date:  1976-06       Impact factor: 5.226

3.  Effect of protein binding on drug penetration into blister fluid.

Authors:  W C Shyu; R Quintiliani; C H Nightingale; M N Dudley
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  1988-01       Impact factor: 5.191

Review 4.  Does serum protein binding inhibit tissue penetration of antibiotics?

Authors:  T Bergan; A Engeset; W Olszewski
Journal:  Rev Infect Dis       Date:  1987 Jul-Aug

5.  The influence of protein binding upon tissue fluid levels of six beta-lactam antibiotics.

Authors:  R Wise; A P Gillett; B Cadge; S R Durham; S Baker
Journal:  J Infect Dis       Date:  1980-07       Impact factor: 5.226

6.  Effect of protein binding on simulated intravascular and extravascular kinetics of cefotaxime in an in vitro model.

Authors:  L R Peterson; L L Van Etta; C E Fasching; D N Gerding
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  1984-01       Impact factor: 5.191

7.  Role of serum protein binding and multiple antibiotic doses in the extravascular distribution of ceftizoxime and cefotaxime.

Authors:  D N Gerding; L L Van Etta; L R Peterson
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  1982-11       Impact factor: 5.191

8.  Cefodizime, an aminothiazolylcephalosporin. II. Comparative studies on the pharmacokinetic behavior in laboratory animals.

Authors:  N Klesel; M Limbert; K Seeger; G Seibert; I Winkler; E Schrinner
Journal:  J Antibiot (Tokyo)       Date:  1984-08       Impact factor: 2.649

9.  Extravascular penetration of highly protein-bound flucloxacillin.

Authors:  T Bergan; A Engeset; W Olszewski; N Ostby; R Solberg
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  1986-11       Impact factor: 5.191

10.  Difference in blister fluid penetration after single and multiple doses of ceftriaxone.

Authors:  M LeBel; S Grégoire; M Caron; M G Bergeron
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  1985-07       Impact factor: 5.191

View more
  6 in total

1.  Antimicrobial activity of ceftriaxone compared with cefotaxime in the presence of serum albumin.

Authors:  S K Nath; G A Foster; L A Mandell; C Rotstein
Journal:  Can J Infect Dis       Date:  1995-01

Review 2.  Importance of relating efficacy measures to unbound drug concentrations for anti-infective agents.

Authors:  Daniel Gonzalez; Stephan Schmidt; Hartmut Derendorf
Journal:  Clin Microbiol Rev       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 26.132

3.  Correlation between in vitro and in vivo activities of GM 237354, a new sordarin derivative, against Candida albicans in an in vitro pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic model and influence of protein binding.

Authors:  P Aviles; C Falcoz; M J Guillén; R San Roman; F Gómez De Las Heras; D Gargallo-Viola
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 5.191

4.  In vivo activity of ceftobiprole in murine skin infections due to Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

Authors:  Jeffrey Fernandez; Jamese J Hilliard; Darren Abbanat; Wenyan Zhang; John L Melton; Colleen M Santoro; Robert K Flamm; Karen Bush
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2009-11-02       Impact factor: 5.191

5.  Analysis of vancomycin entry into pulmonary lining fluid by bronchoalveolar lavage in critically ill patients.

Authors:  C Lamer; V de Beco; P Soler; S Calvat; J Y Fagon; M C Dombret; R Farinotti; J Chastre; C Gibert
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  1993-02       Impact factor: 5.191

6.  In vivo efficacy of humanized exposures of Ceftazidime-Avibactam in comparison with Ceftazidime against contemporary Enterobacteriaceae isolates.

Authors:  Shawn H MacVane; Jared L Crandon; Wright W Nichols; David P Nicolau
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2014-09-15       Impact factor: 5.191

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.