Literature DB >> 7486921

Pharmacodynamics of ceftazidime administered as continuous infusion or intermittent bolus alone and in combination with single daily-dose amikacin against Pseudomonas aeruginosa in an in vitro infection model.

D M Cappelletty1, S L Kang, S M Palmer, M J Rybak.   

Abstract

We compared the pharmacodynamics and killing activity of ceftazidime, administered by continuous infusion and intermittent bolus, against Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC 27853 and ceftazidime-resistant P. aeruginosa 27853CR with and without a single daily dose of amikacin in an in vitro infection model over a 48-h period. Resistance to ceftazidime was selected for by serial passage of P. aeruginosa onto agar containing increasing concentrations of ceftazidime. Human pharmacokinetics and dosages were simulated as follows: half-life, 2 h; intermittent-bolus ceftazidime, 2 g every 8 h (q8h) and q12h; continuous infusion, 2-g loading dose and maintenance infusions of 5, 10, and 20 micrograms/ml; amikacin, 15 mg/kg q24h. There was no significant difference in time to 99.9% killing between any of the monotherapy regimens or between any combination regimen against ceftazidime-susceptible P. aeruginosa. Continuous infusions of 10 and 20 micrograms/ml killed as effectively as an intermittent bolus of 2 g q12h and q8h, respectively. Continuous infusion of 20 micrograms/ml and an intermittent bolus of 2 g q8h were the only regimens which prevented organism regrowth at 48 h, while a continuous infusion of 5 micrograms/ml resulted in the most regrowth. All of the combination regimens exhibited a synergistic response, with rapid killing of ceftazidime-susceptible P. aeruginosa and no regrowth. Against ceftazidime-resistant P. aeruginosa, none of the ceftazidime monotherapy regimens achieved 99.9% killing. The combination regimens exhibited the same rapid killing of the resistant strain as occurred with the susceptible strain; however, regrowth occurred with all regimens. The combination regimens of continuous infusion of 20 micrograms/ml plus amikacin and intermittent bolus q8h or q12h plus amikacin continued to be synergistic. Overall, continuous infusion monotherapy with ceftazidime at concentrations 4 to 5 and 10 to 15 times the MIC was as effective as an intermittent bolus of 2 g q12h (10 to 15 times the MIC) and q8h (25 to 35 times the MIC), respectively, against ceftazidime-susceptible P. aeruginosa. Combination therapy with amikacin plus ceftazidime, either intermittently q8h or by continuous infusion of 20 micrograms/ml, appeared to be effective and exhibited synergism against ceftazidime-resistant P. aeruginosa.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7486921      PMCID: PMC162828          DOI: 10.1128/AAC.39.8.1797

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother        ISSN: 0066-4804            Impact factor:   5.191


  17 in total

1.  Artifacts in dilution pharmacokinetic models caused by adherent bacteria.

Authors:  R Haag; P Lexa; I Werkhäuser
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  1986-05       Impact factor: 5.191

2.  Therapeutic efficacy of continuous versus intermittent administration of ceftazidime in an experimental Klebsiella pneumoniae pneumonia in rats.

Authors:  R Roosendaal; I A Bakker-Woudenberg; J C van den Berg; M F Michel
Journal:  J Infect Dis       Date:  1985-08       Impact factor: 5.226

3.  Combination antibiotic therapy: comparison of constant infusion and intermittent bolus dosing in an experimental animal model.

Authors:  J J Mordenti; R Quintiliani; C H Nightingale
Journal:  J Antimicrob Chemother       Date:  1985-01       Impact factor: 5.790

4.  Cure of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection in neutropenic patients by continuous infusion of ceftazidime.

Authors:  S Daenen; H de Vries-Hospers
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1988-04-23       Impact factor: 79.321

5.  Killing of Pseudomonas aeruginosa during continuous and intermittent infusion of ceftazidime in an in vitro pharmacokinetic model.

Authors:  J W Mouton; J G den Hollander
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  1994-05       Impact factor: 5.191

6.  A randomized study of carbenicillin plus cefamandole or tobramycin in the treatment of febrile episodes in cancer patients.

Authors:  G P Bodey; S J Ketchel; V Rodriguez
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  1979-10       Impact factor: 4.965

7.  Treatment of gram-negative bacillary septicemia with cefoperazone.

Authors:  H Lagast; F Meunier-Carpentier; J Klastersky
Journal:  Eur J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1983-12       Impact factor: 3.267

8.  Mathematical examination of dual individualization principles (II): The rate of bacterial eradication at the same area under the inhibitory curve is more rapid for ciprofloxacin than for cefmenoxime.

Authors:  T F Goss; A Forrest; D E Nix; C H Ballow; M C Birmingham; T J Cumbo; J J Schentag
Journal:  Ann Pharmacother       Date:  1994 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.154

9.  Pharmacodynamics of once-daily amikacin in various combinations with cefepime, aztreonam, and ceftazidime against Pseudomonas aeruginosa in an in vitro infection model.

Authors:  B J McGrath; E M Bailey; K C Lamp; M J Rybak
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  1992-12       Impact factor: 5.191

10.  Comparative antibiotic dose-effect relations at several dosing intervals in murine pneumonitis and thigh-infection models.

Authors:  J E Leggett; B Fantin; S Ebert; K Totsuka; B Vogelman; W Calame; H Mattie; W A Craig
Journal:  J Infect Dis       Date:  1989-02       Impact factor: 5.226

View more
  20 in total

Review 1.  Combination therapy as a tool to prevent emergence of bacterial resistance.

Authors:  J W Mouton
Journal:  Infection       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 3.553

Review 2.  Prolonged Versus Intermittent Infusion of β-Lactam Antibiotics: A Systematic Review and Meta-Regression of Bacterial Killing in Preclinical Infection Models.

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

3.  Pharmacodynamics of cefepime alone and in combination with various antimicrobials against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in an in vitro pharmacodynamic infection model.

Authors:  Vanthida Huang; Michael J Rybak
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 5.191

4.  Evaluation of several dosing regimens of cefepime, with various simulations of renal function, against clinical isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in a pharmacodynamic infection model.

Authors:  D M Cappelletty
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 5.191

5.  Relationships between antimicrobial effect and area under the concentration-time curve as a basis for comparison of modes of antibiotic administration: meropenem bolus injections versus continuous infusions.

Authors:  A A Firsov; H Mattie
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  1997-02       Impact factor: 5.191

6.  In vitro pharmacodynamics of ceftazidime against Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates from cystic fibrosis patients.

Authors:  M Manduru; L B Mihm; R L White; L V Friedrich; P A Flume; J A Bosso
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  1997-09       Impact factor: 5.191

7.  Bactericidal activities of cefprozil, penicillin, cefaclor, cefixime, and loracarbef against penicillin-susceptible and -resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae in an in vitro pharmacodynamic infection model.

Authors:  D M Cappelletty; M J Rybak
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  1996-05       Impact factor: 5.191

8.  Activities of trovafloxacin and ampicillin-sulbactam alone or in combination versus three strains of vancomycin- intermediate Staphylococcus aureus in an in vitro pharmacodynamic infection model.

Authors:  J R Aeschlimann; E Hershberger; M J Rybak
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 5.191

9.  Development and qualification of a pharmacodynamic model for the pronounced inoculum effect of ceftazidime against Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

Authors:  Jürgen B Bulitta; Neang S Ly; Jenny C Yang; Alan Forrest; William J Jusko; Brian T Tsuji
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2008-10-13       Impact factor: 5.191

10.  Continuous infusion versus intermittent administration of ceftazidime in critically ill patients with suspected gram-negative infections.

Authors:  A S Benko; D M Cappelletty; J A Kruse; M J Rybak
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  1996-03       Impact factor: 5.191

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.