| Literature DB >> 32021095 |
Sarah Fawaz1, Breanna Dixon1, Stephen Barton1, Amna Mohamed1, Shereen Nabhani-Gebara1.
Abstract
RATIONALE: Previously, we have been able to outpace bacterial mutation by replacing increasingly ineffective antibiotics with new agents. However, with the discovery of new antibiotics diminishing, optimising the administration of existing broad-spectrum antibiotics such as co-amoxiclav has become a necessity.Entities:
Keywords: co-amoxiclav and antibiotic resistance; prolonged infusion
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32021095 PMCID: PMC6959504 DOI: 10.2147/DDDT.S230459
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Drug Des Devel Ther ISSN: 1177-8881 Impact factor: 4.162
Displaying HPLC Parameters Investigated
| Parameters Investigated | Characteristic |
|---|---|
| Column | Phenomenex Spherisorb 5 µm, 100 × 4.6 mm |
| Mobile Phase | Ammonium Acetate Buffer (5mM) pH 4: Acetonitrile (50:50 v/v) |
| Internal Standard | Caffeine |
| Flow Rate | 1.75mL/min |
| Injection Volume | 10µL |
| Column Temperature | 30°C |
| Wavelength | 225nm |
| Run Time | 2.5 mins |
Figure 1Chromatogram displaying clavulanic acid (tR: 1.117 mins), amoxicillin (tR: 1.565 mins) and caffeine (tR: 1.820 mins) separation.
Figure 2Amoxicillin–clavulanic acid nine-point calibration (internal standard corrected) displaying linearity over the range of 0–80ppm.
Figure 3Stability of amoxicillin over time at (A) 4°C, (B) ambient and (C) 37°C: mean % of intact molecule as a function of time and type of diluent. Error bars: ± standard deviation. Dashed line: 90% of initial concentration.
Displaying the Linear Regression Equations for Each Condition Used to Calculate the Predicted Time at Which Residual Ratio of Amoxicillin Falls Below 90%
| Condition | Deviation of Slope from Zero | Linear Equation | Predicted Stability (hrs) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4°C Saline | Significant p < 0.0001 | y = −1.167x + 101.1 | 10.03 |
| 4°C WFI | Significant p < 0.0001 | y = −1.261x + 102.1 | 9.60 |
| 4°C Ringer’s Solution | Significant p < 0.0001 | y = −1.440x + 101.2 | 7.78 |
| Ambient Saline | Significant p < 0.0001 | y = −1.355x + 101.9 | 8.78 |
| Ambient WFI | Significant p < 0.0001 | y = −1.438x + 100.8 | 7.51 |
| Ambient Ringer’s Solution | Significant p < 0.0001 | y = −1.792x + 100.6 | 5.92 |
| 37°C Saline | Significant p = 0.0001 | y = −2.560x + 99.35 | 3.65 |
| 37°C WFI | Significant p < 0.0001 | y = −2.449x + 101.0 | 4.49 |
| 37°C Ringer’s Solution | Significant p < 0.0001 | y = −3.299x + 101.8 | 3.58 |
Results of ANCOVA Analyses Performed at the Level of Diluent and Temperature.
| Diluent | ANCOVA (All Temperature Conditions) | ANCOVA (Individual Analyses) |
|---|---|---|
| Saline (4°C, Ambient, 37°C) | Significant p = 0.019 | 4°C vs Ambient: p = 0.875 (NS) |
| 4°C vs 37°C: p = 0.007 (S) | ||
| Ambient vs 37°C: p = 0.009 (S) | ||
| WFI (4°C, Ambient, 37°C) | Significant p = 0.004 | 4°C vs Ambient: p = 0.048 (S) |
| 4°C vs 37°C: p = 0.024 (S) | ||
| Ambient vs 37°C: p = 0.063 (S) | ||
| Ringer’s Solution (4°C, Ambient, 37°C) | Significant p = 0.026 | 4°C vs Ambient: p = 0.160 (S) |
| 4°C vs 37°C: p = 0.047 (S) | ||
| Ambient vs 37°C: p = 0.184 (S) | ||
| 4°C (Saline, WFI, Ringer’s Solution) | Significant p = 0.135 | Saline vs WFI: p = 0.629 (NS) |
| Saline vs Ringers: p = 0.07 (S) | ||
| Ringers vs WFI: p = 0.065 (S) | ||
| Ambient (Saline, WFI, Ringer’s Solution) | Significant p = 0.023 | Saline vs WFI: p = 0.125 (S) |
| Saline vs Ringers: p = 0.07 (S) | ||
| Ringers vs WFI: p = 0.233 (S) | ||
| 37°C (Saline, WFI, Ringer’s Solution) | Not significant p = 0.919 | Saline vs WFI: p = 0.289 (NS) |
| Saline vs Ringers: p = 0.925 (NS) | ||
| Ringers vs WFI: p = 0.408 (NS) |
Abbreviations: S, significant; NS, not significant at 75% confidence level.