Vincent H Tam1, Kai-Tai Chang1, Jian Zhou1, Kimberly R Ledesma1, Kady Phe1, Song Gao1, Françoise Van Bambeke2, Ana María Sánchez-Díaz3, Laura Zamorano4, Antonio Oliver4, Rafael Cantón3. 1. University of Houston, Houston, TX, USA. 2. Pharmacologie Cellulaire et Moléculaire & Louvain Drug Research Institute, Université Catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium. 3. Servicio de Microbiología, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal and Instituto Ramón y Cajal de Investigación Sanitaria (IRYCIS), Madrid, Spain. 4. University Hospital Son Espases, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Palma, Palma de Mallorca, Spain.
Abstract
Objectives: β-Lactams are commonly used for nosocomial infections and resistance to these agents among Gram-negative bacteria is increasing rapidly. Optimized dosing is expected to reduce the likelihood of resistance development during antimicrobial therapy, but the target for clinical dose adjustment is not well established. We examined the likelihood that various dosing exposures would suppress resistance development in an in vitro hollow-fibre infection model. Methods: Two strains of Klebsiella pneumoniae and two strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa (baseline inocula of ∼10 8 cfu/mL) were examined. Various dosing exposures of cefepime, ceftazidime and meropenem were simulated in the hollow-fibre infection model. Serial samples were obtained to ascertain the pharmacokinetic simulations and viable bacterial burden for up to 120 h. Drug concentrations were determined by a validated LC-MS/MS assay and the simulated exposures were expressed as C min /MIC ratios. Resistance development was detected by quantitative culture on drug-supplemented media plates (at 3× the corresponding baseline MIC). The C min /MIC breakpoint threshold to prevent bacterial regrowth was identified by classification and regression tree (CART) analysis. Results: For all strains, the bacterial burden declined initially with the simulated exposures, but regrowth was observed in 9 out of 31 experiments. CART analysis revealed that a C min /MIC ratio ≥3.8 was significantly associated with regrowth prevention (100% versus 44%, P = 0.001). Conclusions: The development of β-lactam resistance during therapy could be suppressed by an optimized dosing exposure. Validation of the proposed target in a well-designed clinical study is warranted.
Objectives: β-Lactams are commonly used for nosocomial infections and resistance to these agents among Gram-negative bacteria is increasing rapidly. Optimized dosing is expected to reduce the likelihood of resistance development during antimicrobial therapy, but the target for clinical dose adjustment is not well established. We examined the likelihood that various dosing exposures would suppress resistance development in an in vitro hollow-fibre infection model. Methods: Two strains of Klebsiella pneumoniae and two strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa (baseline inocula of ∼10 8 cfu/mL) were examined. Various dosing exposures of cefepime, ceftazidime and meropenem were simulated in the hollow-fibre infection model. Serial samples were obtained to ascertain the pharmacokinetic simulations and viable bacterial burden for up to 120 h. Drug concentrations were determined by a validated LC-MS/MS assay and the simulated exposures were expressed as C min /MIC ratios. Resistance development was detected by quantitative culture on drug-supplemented media plates (at 3× the corresponding baseline MIC). The C min /MIC breakpoint threshold to prevent bacterial regrowth was identified by classification and regression tree (CART) analysis. Results: For all strains, the bacterial burden declined initially with the simulated exposures, but regrowth was observed in 9 out of 31 experiments. CART analysis revealed that a C min /MIC ratio ≥3.8 was significantly associated with regrowth prevention (100% versus 44%, P = 0.001). Conclusions: The development of β-lactam resistance during therapy could be suppressed by an optimized dosing exposure. Validation of the proposed target in a well-designed clinical study is warranted.
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: Mohammad H Al-Shaer; Michael N Neely; Jiajun Liu; Kartikeya Cherabuddi; Veena Venugopalan; Nathaniel J Rhodes; Kenneth Klinker; Marc H Scheetz; Charles A Peloquin Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2020-08-20 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Vincent H Tam; Henrietta Abodakpi; Weiqun Wang; Kimberly R Ledesma; Paul R Merlau; Katrina Chan; Rachel Altman; Truc T Tran; Michael Nikolaou; Amelia K Sofjan Journal: J Antimicrob Chemother Date: 2021-01-01 Impact factor: 5.790
Authors: Stijn Jonckheere; Nikolaas De Neve; Jan Verbeke; Koen De Decker; Inger Brandt; An Boel; Jan Van Bocxlaer; Michel M R F Struys; Pieter J Colin Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2019-12-20 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Christian M Gill; Elif Aktaş; Wadha Alfouzan; Lori Bourassa; Adrian Brink; Carey-Ann D Burnham; Rafael Canton; Yehuda Carmeli; Marco Falcone; Carlos Kiffer; Anna Marchese; Octavio Martinez; Spyros Pournaras; Harald Seifert; Abrar K Thabit; Maria Virginia Villegas; Lars F Westblade; David P Nicolau Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2021-08-16 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Iordanis Kesisoglou; Brianna M Eales; Kimberly R Ledesma; Paul R Merlau; Vincent H Tam; Weiqun Wang; Michael Nikolaou Journal: Comput Chem Eng Date: 2021-09-13 Impact factor: 3.845
Authors: Mohammad H Alshaer; Nicole Maranchick; Chen Bai; Kelly L Maguigan; Bethany Shoulders; Timothy W Felton; Sumith K Mathew; Mamoun T Mardini; Charles A Peloquin Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2022-06-14 Impact factor: 5.938
Authors: Hajira Bilal; Jessica R Tait; Yinzhi Lang; Jieqiang Zhou; Phillip J Bergen; Anton Y Peleg; Jürgen B Bulitta; Antonio Oliver; Roger L Nation; Cornelia B Landersdorfer Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2022-01-18 Impact factor: 5.938