Anders N Kristoffersson1, Pascale David-Pierson2, Neil J Parrott2, Olaf Kuhlmann2, Thierry Lave2, Lena E Friberg3, Elisabet I Nielsen3. 1. Department of Pharmaceutical Biosciences, Uppsala Universitet, Box 591, Uppsala, SE-751 24, Sweden. anders.kristoffersson@farmbio.uu.se. 2. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., Innovation Center Basel, Pharmaceuticals Sciences, Basel, Switzerland. 3. Department of Pharmaceutical Biosciences, Uppsala Universitet, Box 591, Uppsala, SE-751 24, Sweden.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Antibiotic dose predictions based on PK/PD indices rely on that the index type and magnitude is insensitive to the pharmacokinetics (PK), the dosing regimen, and bacterial susceptibility. In this work we perform simulations to challenge these assumptions for meropenem and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. METHODS: A published murine dose fractionation study was replicated in silico. The sensitivity of the PK/PD index towards experimental design, drug susceptibility, uncertainty in MIC and different PK profiles was evaluated. RESULTS: The previous murine study data were well replicated with fT > MIC selected as the best predictor. However, for increased dosing frequencies fAUC/MIC was found to be more predictive and the magnitude of the index was sensitive to drug susceptibility. With human PK fT > MIC and fAUC/MIC had similar predictive capacities with preference for fT > MIC when short t1/2 and fAUC/MIC when long t1/2. CONCLUSIONS: A longitudinal PKPD model based on in vitro data successfully predicted a previous in vivo study of meropenem. The type and magnitude of the PK/PD index were sensitive to the experimental design, the MIC and the PK. Therefore, it may be preferable to perform simulations for dose selection based on an integrated PK-PKPD model rather than using a fixed PK/PD index target.
PURPOSE: Antibiotic dose predictions based on PK/PD indices rely on that the index type and magnitude is insensitive to the pharmacokinetics (PK), the dosing regimen, and bacterial susceptibility. In this work we perform simulations to challenge these assumptions for meropenem and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. METHODS: A published murine dose fractionation study was replicated in silico. The sensitivity of the PK/PD index towards experimental design, drug susceptibility, uncertainty in MIC and different PK profiles was evaluated. RESULTS: The previous murine study data were well replicated with fT > MIC selected as the best predictor. However, for increased dosing frequencies fAUC/MIC was found to be more predictive and the magnitude of the index was sensitive to drug susceptibility. With human PK fT > MIC and fAUC/MIC had similar predictive capacities with preference for fT > MIC when short t1/2 and fAUC/MIC when long t1/2. CONCLUSIONS: A longitudinal PKPD model based on in vitro data successfully predicted a previous in vivo study of meropenem. The type and magnitude of the PK/PD index were sensitive to the experimental design, the MIC and the PK. Therefore, it may be preferable to perform simulations for dose selection based on an integrated PK-PKPD model rather than using a fixed PK/PD index target.
Authors: Johan W Mouton; Michael N Dudley; Otto Cars; Hartmut Derendorf; George L Drusano Journal: J Antimicrob Chemother Date: 2005-03-16 Impact factor: 5.790
Authors: G L Drusano; T P Lodise; D Melnick; W Liu; A Oliver; A Mena; B VanScoy; A Louie Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2011-05-16 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Ami F Mohamed; Anders N Kristoffersson; Matti Karvanen; Elisabet I Nielsen; Otto Cars; Lena E Friberg Journal: J Antimicrob Chemother Date: 2016-02-04 Impact factor: 5.790
Authors: John N van den Anker; Pavla Pokorna; Martina Kinzig-Schippers; Jirina Martinkova; Ronald de Groot; G L Drusano; Fritz Sorgel Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2009-07-06 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Jason A Roberts; Sanjoy K Paul; Murat Akova; Matteo Bassetti; Jan J De Waele; George Dimopoulos; Kirsi-Maija Kaukonen; Despoina Koulenti; Claude Martin; Philippe Montravers; Jordi Rello; Andrew Rhodes; Therese Starr; Steven C Wallis; Jeffrey Lipman Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2014-01-14 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Sofie Dhaese; Aaron Heffernan; David Liu; Mohd Hafiz Abdul-Aziz; Veronique Stove; Vincent H Tam; Jeffrey Lipman; Jason A Roberts; Jan J De Waele Journal: Clin Pharmacokinet Date: 2020-10 Impact factor: 6.447
Authors: T Tängdén; V Ramos Martín; T W Felton; E I Nielsen; S Marchand; R J Brüggemann; J B Bulitta; M Bassetti; U Theuretzbacher; B T Tsuji; D W Wareham; L E Friberg; J J De Waele; V H Tam; Jason A Roberts Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2017-04-13 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: M A Zuur; S Ghimire; M S Bolhuis; A M A Wessels; R van Altena; W C M de Lange; J G W Kosterink; D J Touw; T S van der Werf; O W Akkerman; J W C Alffenaar Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2018-04-26 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: James Albiero; Josmar Mazucheli; Juliana Pimenta Dos Reis Barros; Marcia Maria Dos Anjos Szczerepa; Sheila Alexandra Belini Nishiyama; Floristher Elaine Carrara-Marroni; Serubbabel Sy; Matthew Fidler; Sherwin K B Sy; Maria Cristina Bronharo Tognim Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2019-05-24 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Rajbharan Yadav; Jürgen B Bulitta; Jiping Wang; Roger L Nation; Cornelia B Landersdorfer Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2017-11-22 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Laurynas Mockeliunas; Lina Keutzer; Marieke G G Sturkenboom; Mathieu S Bolhuis; Lotte M G Hulskotte; Onno W Akkerman; Ulrika S H Simonsson Journal: Pharmaceutics Date: 2022-03-30 Impact factor: 6.525
Authors: Pierre-Louis Toutain; Alain Bousquet-Mélou; Peter Damborg; Aude A Ferran; Dik Mevius; Ludovic Pelligand; Kees T Veldman; Peter Lees Journal: Front Microbiol Date: 2017-12-15 Impact factor: 5.640