| Literature DB >> 35326865 |
Shuge Wang1,2,3, Anxiong Huang1,2, Yufeng Gu1,2, Jun Li4, Lingli Huang1,2, Xu Wang1,2, Yanfei Tao1,2, Zhenli Liu1,2, Congming Wu3, Zonghui Yuan1,2, Haihong Hao1,2.
Abstract
The study was to explore the rational use of danofloxacin against Mycoplasma gallisepticum (MG) based on its clinical breakpoint (CBP) and the effect on lung microbiota. The CBP was established according to epidemiological cutoff value (ECV/COWT), pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PK-PD) cutoff value (COPD) and clinical cutoff value (COCL). The ECV was determined by the micro-broth dilution method and analyzed by ECOFFinder software. The COPD was determined according to PK-PD modeling of danofloxacin in infected lung tissue with Monte Carlo analysis. The COCL was performed based on the relationship between the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and the possibility of cure (POC) from clinical trials. The CBP in infected lung tissue was 1 μg/mL according to CLSI M37-A3 decision tree. The 16S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) sequencing results showed that the lung microbiota, especially the phyla Firmicutes and Proteobacteria had changed significantly along with the process of cure regimen (the 24 h dosing interval of 16.60 mg/kg b.w for three consecutive days). Our study suggested that the rational use of danofloxacin for the treatment of MG infections should consider the MIC and effect of antibiotics on the respiratory microbiota.Entities:
Keywords: Mycoplasma gallisepticum; PK–PD cutoff values; clinical breakpoint; clinical cutoff values; danofloxacin; epidemiological cutoff values; lung microbiota
Year: 2022 PMID: 35326865 PMCID: PMC8944443 DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics11030403
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Antibiotics (Basel) ISSN: 2079-6382
Primer sequences for identification of MG.
| Primer | Sequence | Amplicon Size |
|---|---|---|
| GAGCTAATCTGTAAAGTTGGTC | 185 bp | |
| GCTTCCTTGCGGTTAGCAAC |
Figure 1Nonlinear regression of MIC distribution of danofloxacin against MG (n = 111). Note: “Raw Count” was the measured MICs of danofloxacin; “Fitted” was the simulated MICs of danofloxacin.
Figure 2The killing-time curves of danofloxacin against M19 in FM-4 broth (in vitro). Note: M19 is a highly pathogenic strain as determined by the chicken embryo virulence test. FM-4 is a medium for the culture of MG. MIC (2 μg/mL) is the minimum inhibitory concentration of danofloxacin against M19.
Figure 3Ex vivo killing-time curves in infected lung tissue.
Figure 4Mean concentration versus time for danofloxacin in healthy and diseased lung ((A): healthy lung (B): diseased lung).
PK parameters in plasma (left) and lung (right) in healthy (n = 65) and infected (n = 65) broilers after an oral administration of danofloxacin at a dose of 5 mg/kg.
| Parameter | Units | Plasma | Lung | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Healthy Group | Infected Group | Healthy Group | Infected Group | ||
| Cmax | μg/mL | 0.32 ± 0.00 | 0.28 ± 0.01 | 4.28 ± 0.17 | 4.71 ± 0.29 |
| Tmax | h | 0.82 ± 0.04 | 0.99 ± 0.10 | 1.28 ± 0.03 | 1.30 ± 0.01 |
| α | 1/h | 1.80 ± 0.02 | 1.32 ± 0.03 | 0.75 ± 0.02 | 0.76 ± 0.02 |
| β | 1/h | 0.05 ± 0.02 | 0.03 ± 0.01 | 0.05 ± 0.01 | 0.07 ± 0.01 |
| T1/2α | h | 0.38 ± 0.02 | 0.53 ± 0.13 | 0.92 ± 0.03 | 0.91 ± 0.03 |
| T1/2β | h | 14.55 ± 0.83 | 25.21 ± 0.72 | 13.77 ± 0.43 | 9.77 ± 0.72 |
| CL/F | (mg/kg)/(h·μg/mL) | 0.93 ± 0.08 | 0.82 ± 0.06 | 0.23 ± 0.02 | 0.22 ± 0.05 |
| AUC24 | h·μg/mL | 5.40 ± 0.46 | 6.12 ± 0.24 | 21.97 ± 2.80 | 23.67 ± 2.24 |
Note: Cmax is the peak concentration; Tmax is the peak time; α is the distribution rate constant; β is the elimination rate constant; T1/2α is the distribution half-life; T1/2β is the elimination half-life; CL is the clearance rate, F is the bioavailability, CL/F is the body clearance corrected by bioavailability, and AUC is the area under the curve of the drug.
The Sigmoid Emax model of danofloxacin in the lung.
| Parameters | Units | Diseased Group |
|---|---|---|
| Emax | LgCCU/mL | 1.85 |
| E0 | LgCCU/mL | −6 |
| EC50 | h | 31.22 |
| N | − | 2.67 |
| Emax − E0 | LgCCU/mL | 7.85 |
| (AUC24h/MIC)exE = 0 | h | 20.09 |
| (AUC24h/MIC)exE = −3 | h | 37.34 |
| (AUC24h/MIC)exE = −4 | h | 46.67 |
Note: (AUC24h/MIC)exE is the difference of antibacterial CCU logarithm of lung tissue samples incubated with danofloxacin; Emax is the maximum difference of antibacterial CCU logarithm of lung tissue samples incubated with danofloxacin; E0 is the difference after 24 h incubation in CCU antibacterial logarithm in control samples; EC50 is considered the PK–PD parameter value ex vivo when producing 50% maximal bactericidal effect in the lung tissue sample; N is the Hill coefficient, which is used to determine the S-shaped curve, describe the effect value E linearization ex vivo and the slope of the PK–PD parameter value.
The effect of danofloxacin for the treatment of different MIC of MG.
| Group | MIC | Total | Valid | Cure | Effective Rate | Cure Rate (%) | Average Gain | Air Sac Average Damage Score | Air Sac Injury Reduction Rate (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blank group | - | 15 | - | - | - | - | 290.00 ± 68.10 | 0.00 ± 0.00 | 100 |
| M57 Test group | 4 | 15 | 13 | 8 | 86.7 | 53.3 | 185.10 ± 50.20 | 2.57 ± 0.50 | 58 |
| 15 | - | - | - | - | 100.21 ± 28.20 | 2.90 ± 0.80 | 0 | ||
| M19 Test group | 2 | 15 | 12 | 9 | 80 | 60 | 230.10 ± 25.20 | 1.73 ± 0.30 | 62 |
| 15 | - | - | - | - | 97.10 ± 35.20 | 2.87 ± 0.77 | 0 | ||
| M73 Test group | 1 | 15 | 11 | 10 | 73.3 | 66.7 | 255.50 ± 29.22 | 0.71 ± 0.70 | 64 |
| 15 | - | - | - | - | 80.30 ± 19.30 | 3.00 ± 0.52 | 0 | ||
| M24 Test group | 0.25 | 15 | 14 | 14 | 93.3 | 93.3 | 247.20 ± 32.35 | 0.56 ± 0.72 | 79 |
| 15 | - | - | - | - | 59.10 ± 14.00 | 2.93 ± 0.69 | 0 | ||
| M2 Test group | 0.016 | 15 | 14 | 15 | 93.3 | 100 | 268.10 ± 18.23 | 0.53 ± 0.73 | 85 |
| 15 | - | - | - | - | 80.30 ± 16.39 | 3.2 ± 0.93 | 0 |
The CAR and MaxDiff results of WindoW analysis for five strains of different MIC.
| Strain | MIC (μg/mL) | Success Treatment | %Success ≤ MIC | %Success > MIC | MaxDiff | AUCSucc | AUCTotal | CAR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M2 | 0.016 | 15 | 100.00 A | 68.33 B | 31.67 | 0.12 | 0.12 | 1 |
| M24 | 0.25 | 14 | 93.30 | 60.00 | 33.30 C | 3.51 | 3.63 | 0.967 |
| M73 | 1 | 10 | 66.67 | 56.67 | 10.00 | 12.513 | 14.88 | 0.841 |
| M19 | 2 | 9 | 60.00 | 53.33 | 6.67 | 22.013 | 29.88 | 0.737 |
| M57 | 4 | 8 | 53.33 | 53.33 | 0.00 | 39.093 | 59.88 | 0.653 |
Note: A is Subset A, B is Subset B, and C is MaxDiff. Subset A = 100 × (15/15); Subset B = 100 × (14 + 10 + 9 + 8)/(15 + 15 + 15 + 15).
Figure 5Taxonomic classification of the 16S rRNA sequences at phylum. Note: HWK represents the control group; GW represents the infection group; ZW represents the treatment group, and ZHW represents the post-treatment group.
Figure 6Venn diagrams of the common and unique OTUs of the four groups. Note: HWK represents the control group; GW represents the infection group; ZW represents the treatment group, and ZHW represents the post-treatment group. The numbers in the Venn diagram indicate the common (overlapping part) and unique OTUs of each sample group. The common OTUs represent the overlapping part between two or more groups, and the unique OTUs represent the part where no overlap occurred.