Literature DB >> 16189103

Pharmacodynamics of moxifloxacin against anaerobes studied in an in vitro pharmacokinetic model.

Alan R Noel1, Karen E Bowker, Alasdair P Macgowan.   

Abstract

The antibacterial effects of moxifloxacin against Bacteroides fragilis, Clostridium perfringens, and gram-positive anaerobic cocci (GPAC) were studied in an in vitro pharmacokinetic model. Initially, a dose-ranging study with area under the concentration-time curve (AUC)/MIC ratios of 6.7 to 890 was used to investigate the effect of anaerobic conditions on the AUC/MIC antibacterial effect (ABE) relationship with Escherichia coli. The AUC/MIC ratios for 50% and 90% effects, using a log CFU drop at 24 h as the antibacterial effect measure, were 34 and 59, respectively, aerobic and 54 and 96, respectively, anaerobic. These values are not significantly different. Dose ranging at AUC/MIC ratios of 9 to 216 against the anaerobes indicated a differing AUC/MIC ABE pattern, and the AUC/MICs for 50% and 90% effects were lower: for B. fragilis, they were 10.5 and 25.7, respectively; for C. perfringens, they were 8.6 and 16.2; and for GPAC, they were 7.3 and 17.4. The maximum-effect log drops were as follows: for B. fragilis, -3.2 +/- 0.2 logs; for C. perfringens, -3.7 +/- 0.1 logs; and for GPAC, -2.5 +/- 0.1 logs. Although the anaerobes were not eradicated, there was no emergence of resistance. Comparison of the ABE of moxifloxacin to that of ertapenem against B. fragilis indicated that moxifloxacin was superior at 24 h and 48 h. In contrast, ertapenem was superior to moxifloxacin against GPAC at 24 h and 48 h and against C. perfringens at 48 h. Both drugs performed equivalently against C. perfringens at 24 h. Monte Carlo simulations using human serum AUC data and an AUC/MIC anaerobe target of 7.5 suggests a >90% target achievement at MICs of <2 mg/liter. This divides the B. fragilis wild-type MIC distribution. The pharmacodynamic properties of moxifloxacin against anaerobes are different than those against aerobic species. The clinical implications of these differences need further exploration.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16189103      PMCID: PMC1251564          DOI: 10.1128/AAC.49.10.4234-4239.2005

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


  20 in total

1.  Comparative pharmacodynamics of three newer fluoroquinolones versus six strains of staphylococci in an in vitro model under aerobic and anaerobic conditions.

Authors:  David H Wright; Brent W Gunderson; Laurie B Hovde; Gigi H Ross; Khalid H Ibrahim; John C Rotschafer
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 5.191

Review 2.  In vitro antibacterial activity and pharmacodynamics of new quinolones.

Authors:  A Dalhoff; F-J Schmitz
Journal:  Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis       Date:  2003-04-01       Impact factor: 3.267

3.  In vitro activities of ertapenem (MK-0826) against recent clinical bacteria collected in Europe and Australia.

Authors:  D M Livermore; M W Carter; S Bagel; B Wiedemann; F Baquero; E Loza; H P Endtz; N van Den Braak; C J Fernandes; L Fernandes; N Frimodt-Moller; L S Rasmussen; H Giamarellou; E Giamarellos-Bourboulis; V Jarlier; J Nguyen; C E Nord; M J Struelens; C Nonhoff; J Turnidge; J Bell; R Zbinden; S Pfister; L Mixson; D L Shungu
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 5.191

4.  Trovafloxacin in the treatment of intra-abdominal infections: results of a double-blind, multicenter comparison with imipenem/cilastatin. Trovafloxacin Surgical Group.

Authors:  P E Donahue; D L Smith; A E Yellin; S J Mintz; F Bur; D R Luke
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 2.565

5.  Comparative in vitro activities of ertapenem against bacterial pathogens from patients with acute pelvic infection.

Authors:  Barbara A Pelak; Diane M Citron; Mary Motyl; Ellie J C Goldstein; Gail L Woods; Hedy Teppler
Journal:  J Antimicrob Chemother       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 5.790

6.  Fluoroquinolone resistance in anaerobic bacteria following exposure to levofloxacin, trovafloxacin, and sparfloxacin in an in vitro pharmacodynamic model.

Authors:  G H Ross; D H Wright; L B Hovde; M L Peterson; J C Rotschafer
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 5.191

7.  Results of a clinical trial of clinafloxacin versus imipenem/cilastatin for intraabdominal infections.

Authors:  J S Solomkin; S E Wilson; N V Christou; O D Rotstein; E P Dellinger; R S Bennion; R Pak; K Tack
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 12.969

8.  In vitro activities of sitafloxacin (DU-6859a) and six other fluoroquinolones against 8,796 clinical bacterial isolates.

Authors:  D Milatovic; F J Schmitz; S Brisse; J Verhoef; A C Fluit
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 5.191

9.  Activities of moxifloxacin against, and emergence of resistance in, Streptococcus pneumoniae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa in an in vitro pharmacokinetic model.

Authors:  Alasdair P MacGowan; Chris A Rogers; H Alan Holt; Karen E Bowker
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 5.191

10.  Emergence of fluoroquinolone resistance among Bacteroides species.

Authors:  Yoav Golan; Laura A McDermott; Nilda V Jacobus; Ellie J C Goldstein; Sydney Finegold; Lizzie J Harrell; David W Hecht; Stephen G Jenkins; C Pierson; Richard Venezia; Jack Rihs; Paul Iannini; Sherwood L Gorbach; David R Snydman
Journal:  J Antimicrob Chemother       Date:  2003-07-15       Impact factor: 5.790

View more
  8 in total

1.  Bacterial strain-to-strain variation in pharmacodynamic index magnitude, a hitherto unconsidered factor in establishing antibiotic clinical breakpoints.

Authors:  Alasdair P MacGowan; Rosy Reynolds; Alan R Noel; Karen E Bowker
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2009-10-05       Impact factor: 5.191

Review 2.  What Antibiotic Exposures Are Required to Suppress the Emergence of Resistance for Gram-Negative Bacteria? A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Chandra Datta Sumi; Aaron J Heffernan; Jeffrey Lipman; Jason A Roberts; Fekade B Sime
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  2019-11       Impact factor: 6.447

3.  Pharmacokinetic evaluation of the penetration of antituberculosis agents in rabbit pulmonary lesions.

Authors:  Maria C Kjellsson; Laura E Via; Anne Goh; Danielle Weiner; Kang Min Low; Steven Kern; Goonaseelan Pillai; Clifton E Barry; Véronique Dartois
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2011-10-10       Impact factor: 5.191

4.  Ceftaroline plus avibactam demonstrates bactericidal activity against pathogenic anaerobic bacteria in a one-compartment in vitro pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic model.

Authors:  Brian J Werth; Michael J Rybak
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2013-11-11       Impact factor: 5.191

5.  Pharmacokinetics and tissue penetration of moxifloxacin in intervention therapy for intra-abdominal abscess.

Authors:  Andreas D Rink; Heino Stass; Heinz Delesen; Dagmar Kubitza; Karl-Heinz Vestweber
Journal:  Clin Drug Investig       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 2.859

6.  Moxifloxacinium chloride monohydrate.

Authors:  Jing-Jing Qian; Jian-Ming Gu; Jin Shen; Xiu-Rong Hu; Su-Xiang Wu
Journal:  Acta Crystallogr Sect E Struct Rep Online       Date:  2011-09-30

7.  Skin and skin structure infections: treatment with newer generation fluoroquinolones.

Authors:  Philip Giordano; Kurt Weber; Gail Gesin; Jason Kubert
Journal:  Ther Clin Risk Manag       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 2.423

8.  Moxifloxacin in the treatment of skin and skin structure infections.

Authors:  David Rp Guay
Journal:  Ther Clin Risk Manag       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 2.423

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.