Literature DB >> 18790614

Enrichment of resistant Staphylococcus aureus at ciprofloxacin concentrations simulated within the mutant selection window: bolus versus continuous infusion.

Alexander A Firsov1, Maria V Smirnova, Elena N Strukova, Sergey N Vostrov, Yury A Portnoy, Stephen H Zinner.   

Abstract

Enrichment of resistant mutants at antibiotic concentrations above the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) but below the mutant prevention concentration (MPC), i.e. within the mutant selection window (MSW), might be dependent on the shape of the pharmacokinetic profile. To address this issue, two strains of Staphylococcus aureus were exposed to fluctuating (bolus administration) and constant (continuous infusion) concentrations of ciprofloxacin. Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 43300 and ATCC 6538 exhibiting different MPC/MIC ratios (4 and 16, respectively) were exposed to ciprofloxacin twice daily by bolus administration and continuous infusion for 3 days. With each organism and mode of administration, a series of pharmacokinetic profiles was simulated to have the same 24-h area under the concentration-time curve (AUC24) to MIC ratio. The simulated AUC24/MIC ratios were designed to provide ciprofloxacin concentrations within the MSW over most of the dosing interval (bolus administration) or over the entire dosing interval (continuous infusion). In all simulations, ciprofloxacin-resistant staphylococci were enriched in a concentration-dependent manner, i.e. the higher the AUC24/MIC, the later the onset of mutant selection and the smaller the area under the bacterial mutant curve (AUBC M). The relationships between AUC24/MIC and AUBC M were independent of the shape of the simulated pharmacokinetic profiles that corresponded to the different modes of ciprofloxacin administration. For mutants resistant to > or = 4 x MIC of ciprofloxacin, the AUC24/MIC was less predictive of the AUBC M than the AUC24/MPC ratio. This study indicates the mode of ciprofloxacin administration does not influence selection of resistant staphylococci, which is better predicted by AUC24/MPC than by AUC24/MIC.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18790614     DOI: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2008.06.031

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Antimicrob Agents        ISSN: 0924-8579            Impact factor:   5.283


  5 in total

1.  Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic analysis of the influence of inoculum size on the selection of resistance in Escherichia coli by a quinolone in a mouse thigh bacterial infection model.

Authors:  Aude A Ferran; Anne-Sylvie Kesteman; Pierre-Louis Toutain; Alain Bousquet-Mélou
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2009-06-01       Impact factor: 5.191

2.  In vitro resistance studies with bacteria that exhibit low mutation frequencies: prediction of "antimutant" linezolid concentrations using a mixed inoculum containing both susceptible and resistant Staphylococcus aureus.

Authors:  Alexander A Firsov; Maria V Golikova; Elena N Strukova; Yury A Portnoy; Andrey V Romanov; Mikhail V Edelstein; Stephen H Zinner
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2014-12-01       Impact factor: 5.191

3.  Bacterial resistance studies using in vitro dynamic models: the predictive power of the mutant prevention and minimum inhibitory antibiotic concentrations.

Authors:  Alexander A Firsov; Elena N Strukova; Darya S Shlykova; Yury A Portnoy; Varvara K Kozyreva; Mikhail V Edelstein; Svetlana A Dovzhenko; Mikhail B Kobrin; Stephen H Zinner
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2013-07-29       Impact factor: 5.191

4.  Searching for the Optimal Predictor of Ciprofloxacin Resistance in Klebsiella pneumoniae by Using In Vitro Dynamic Models.

Authors:  Elena N Strukova; Yury A Portnoy; Andrey V Romanov; Mikhail V Edelstein; Stephen H Zinner; Alexander A Firsov
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2015-12-07       Impact factor: 5.191

5.  Synergistic combination of two antimicrobial agents closing each other's mutant selection windows to prevent antimicrobial resistance.

Authors:  Xuejie Xu; Li Xu; Ganjun Yuan; Yimin Wang; Yunqiu Qu; Meijing Zhou
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-05-08       Impact factor: 4.379

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.