OBJECTIVES: To determine if ceftaroline and ceftazidime combined with avibactam are efficacious against pulmonary Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC) disease. METHODS: First, we performed a concentration-effect study of ceftaroline and ceftaroline/avibactam against extracellular MAC in test tubes. Given the difficulty of obtaining avibactam at the time of experimentation, we used a single concentration of commercial ceftazidime/avibactam, and two sets of non-treated controls, one with ceftazidime/avibactam and the other without. After finding antimicrobial activity with the ceftazidime/avibactam 'control', we performed ceftazidime/avibactam dose-effect studies in test tubes against extracellular MAC and in 24-well plates against intracellular MAC. We then performed a ceftazidime/avibactam exposure-effect and dose-fractionation studies in the hollow-fibre system model of intracellular pulmonary MAC (HFS-MAC). In each experiment, we repetitively sampled each HFS-MAC at specified times to validate ceftazidime/avibactam pharmacokinetics and to quantify bacterial burden. RESULTS: Ceftaroline killed extracellular MAC with maximal microbial kill (Emax) of 4.87 ± 0.26 log10 cfu/mL. However, the ceftazidime/avibactam 'control' also killed MAC compared with the non-treated control. Ceftazidime/avibactam Emax was 3.8 log10 cfu/mL against extracellular bacilli and 3.6 log10 cfu/mL against intracellular MAC. In the HFS-MAC, ceftazidime/avibactam achieved a half-life of 2.5-3.3 h and killed MAC 0.61-2.40 log10 cfu/mL below the starting bacterial burden. The ceftazidime/avibactam efficacy was linked to the proportion of the dosing interval for which the concentration persists above the MIC (fT>MIC), with optimal efficacy at free-drug fT>MIC of 52% (r2 = 0.95). CONCLUSIONS: Ceftazidime/avibactam effectively kills MAC at exposures easily achieved in the lung by clinical doses. Efficacy was higher than with clinically achievable doses of azithromycin and ethambutol.
OBJECTIVES: To determine if ceftaroline and ceftazidime combined with avibactam are efficacious against pulmonary Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC) disease. METHODS: First, we performed a concentration-effect study of ceftaroline and ceftaroline/avibactam against extracellular MAC in test tubes. Given the difficulty of obtaining avibactam at the time of experimentation, we used a single concentration of commercial ceftazidime/avibactam, and two sets of non-treated controls, one with ceftazidime/avibactam and the other without. After finding antimicrobial activity with the ceftazidime/avibactam 'control', we performed ceftazidime/avibactam dose-effect studies in test tubes against extracellular MAC and in 24-well plates against intracellular MAC. We then performed a ceftazidime/avibactam exposure-effect and dose-fractionation studies in the hollow-fibre system model of intracellular pulmonary MAC (HFS-MAC). In each experiment, we repetitively sampled each HFS-MAC at specified times to validate ceftazidime/avibactam pharmacokinetics and to quantify bacterial burden. RESULTS: Ceftaroline killed extracellular MAC with maximal microbial kill (Emax) of 4.87 ± 0.26 log10 cfu/mL. However, the ceftazidime/avibactam 'control' also killed MAC compared with the non-treated control. Ceftazidime/avibactam Emax was 3.8 log10 cfu/mL against extracellular bacilli and 3.6 log10 cfu/mL against intracellular MAC. In the HFS-MAC, ceftazidime/avibactam achieved a half-life of 2.5-3.3 h and killed MAC 0.61-2.40 log10 cfu/mL below the starting bacterial burden. The ceftazidime/avibactam efficacy was linked to the proportion of the dosing interval for which the concentration persists above the MIC (fT>MIC), with optimal efficacy at free-drug fT>MIC of 52% (r2 = 0.95). CONCLUSIONS: Ceftazidime/avibactam effectively kills MAC at exposures easily achieved in the lung by clinical doses. Efficacy was higher than with clinically achievable doses of azithromycin and ethambutol.
Authors: Dafna Yahav; Christian G Giske; Alise Grāmatniece; Henrietta Abodakpi; Vincent H Tam; Leonard Leibovici Journal: Clin Microbiol Rev Date: 2020-11-11 Impact factor: 26.132
Authors: Jan-Willem Alffenaar; Anne-Grete Märtson; Scott K Heysell; Jin-Gun Cho; Asad Patanwala; Gina Burch; Hannah Y Kim; Marieke G G Sturkenboom; Anthony Byrne; Debbie Marriott; Indy Sandaradura; Simon Tiberi; Vitali Sintchencko; Shashikant Srivastava; Charles A Peloquin Journal: Clin Pharmacokinet Date: 2021-03-10 Impact factor: 6.447
Authors: Gunavanthi D Boorgula; Laxmi U M R Jakkula; Tawanda Gumbo; Bockgie Jung; Shashikant Srivastava Journal: Front Pharmacol Date: 2021-04-15 Impact factor: 5.810
Authors: Ivan Malík; Jozef Csöllei; Ivan Solovič; Šárka Pospíšilová; Hana Michnová; Josef Jampílek; Alois Čížek; Iva Kapustíková; Jana Čurillová; Mária Pecháčová; Jiřina Stolaříková; Daniel Pecher; Michal Oravec Journal: Molecules Date: 2018-09-28 Impact factor: 4.411