Literature DB >> 9021191

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.

A A Firsov1, H Mattie.   

Abstract

In comparative studies of different modes of administration (MAs) simulated in in vitro dynamic models, only one dose of antibiotic is usually mimicked. Such an experimental design can provide a prediction of the antimicrobial effect (AME) of a given combination of drug, clinical isolate, and infection site, but may be inappropriate for accurate comparison of MAs. An alternative design providing comparison of different MAs with various antibiotic doses in a wide range and with evaluation of the respective relationships between AME and the AUC was proposed and examined. Two series of meropenem pharmacokinetic profiles, i.e., monoexponentially decreasing concentrations (bolus doses) and constant concentrations (6-h continuous infusion), were in vitro simulated. The simulated initial concentrations (Co[from 0.62 to 48 micrograms/ml]) and steady-state concentrations (Css[from 0.016 to 8 micrograms/ml]) were chosen to provide similar AUC for 0 to 6 h (AUC0-6) ranges for both MAs (from 0.070 to 50.0 micrograms.h/ml and from 0.09 to 48.0 micrograms.h/ml, respectively). The AME of meropenem on Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 25923 (MIC, 0.06 micrograms/ml) was determined at each time (t) point as a difference (E) between the logarithms of viable counts (N) in the control cultures without antibiotic (NC) and in cultures exposed to antibiotics (NA). Time courses of E observed at different Co of Css levels were compared in terms of the areas under the E-t curves (ABBCt). The finite values of the ABBCt observed by the end of the 6 -h observation period, which are equivalent to the area between bacterial count-time curves observed in the absence and presence of antibiotic (ABBC), were plotted versus the respective AUCs produced by each of the MAs. The ABBC versus AUC curves had a similar pattern: a plateau achieved at high AUCs followed by a steep rise in ABBC at relatively low AUCs was inherent in both of the MAs. The superiority of bolus dosing over the infusions could be documented only for meropenem concentrations below the MIC. At higher Co or Css (i.e., at an AUC of > or = 0.4 micrograms.h/ml), the ABBC versus AUC curves plotted for each of the MAs could practically be superimposed. On the whole, both MAs appeared to be equiefficient in terms of the ABBC. These results suggest that AUC analysis of the AME may be a useful tool for comparing different MAs. Such comparative studies should be designed in a manner that provides the use of similar AUC ranges, since the AUC may be considered as a common pharmacokinetic denominator in comparing one MA or dosing regimen to another.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9021191      PMCID: PMC163713     

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


  22 in total

1.  Cloxacillin and nafcillin: serum binding and its relationship to antibacterial effect in mice.

Authors:  H Mattie; W R Goslings; E L Noach
Journal:  J Infect Dis       Date:  1973-08       Impact factor: 5.226

2.  Mathematical corrections for bacterial loss in pharmacodynamic in vitro dilution models.

Authors:  S Keil; B Wiedemann
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  1995-05       Impact factor: 5.191

3.  A comparison of the pharmacokinetics of meropenem after administration by intravenous injection over 5 min and intravenous infusion over 30 min.

Authors:  H C Kelly; M Hutchison; S J Haworth
Journal:  J Antimicrob Chemother       Date:  1995-07       Impact factor: 5.790

4.  In vitro evaluation of the determinants of bactericidal activity of ampicillin dosing regimens against Escherichia coli.

Authors:  C A White; R D Toothaker; A L Smith; J T Slattery
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  1989-07       Impact factor: 5.191

5.  The pharmacokinetics of meropenem in volunteers.

Authors:  R P Bax; W Bastain; A Featherstone; D M Wilkinson; M Hutchison; S J Haworth
Journal:  J Antimicrob Chemother       Date:  1989-09       Impact factor: 5.790

6.  The disposition and metabolism of meropenem in laboratory animals and man.

Authors:  M P Harrison; S R Moss; A Featherstone; A G Fowkes; A M Sanders; D E Case
Journal:  J Antimicrob Chemother       Date:  1989-09       Impact factor: 5.790

7.  Probenecid and the antibacterial activity of cephradine in vivo.

Authors:  M W Kunst; H Mattie
Journal:  J Infect Dis       Date:  1978-06       Impact factor: 5.226

8.  Predictors of effect of ampicillin-sulbactam against TEM-1 beta-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli in an in vitro dynamic model: enzyme activity versus MIC.

Authors:  A A Firsov; D Saverino; D Savarino; M Ruble; D Gilbert; B Manzano; A A Medeiros; S H Zinner
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  1996-03       Impact factor: 5.191

9.  Constant infusions vs. intermittent doses of gentamicin against Pseudomonas aeruginosa in vitro.

Authors:  A U Gerber; P Wiprächtiger; U Stettler-Spichiger; G Lebek
Journal:  J Infect Dis       Date:  1982-04       Impact factor: 5.226

10.  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.

Authors:  D M Cappelletty; S L Kang; S M Palmer; M J Rybak
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  1995-08       Impact factor: 5.191

View more
  5 in total

Review 1.  Comparative pharmacokinetics of the carbapenems: clinical implications.

Authors:  J W Mouton; D J Touzw; A M Horrevorts; A A Vinks
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 6.447

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.  Pharmacodynamic evaluation of extending the administration time of meropenem using a Monte Carlo simulation.

Authors:  Ben M Lomaestro; G L Drusano
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 5.191

4.  Pharmacodynamics of the antibacterial effect and emergence of resistance to tomopenem, formerly RO4908463/CS-023, in an in vitro pharmacokinetic model of Staphylococcus aureus infection.

Authors:  Alasdair P MacGowan; Karen E Bowker; Alan R Noel
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2008-01-28       Impact factor: 5.191

5.  Blue light rescues mice from potentially fatal Pseudomonas aeruginosa burn infection: efficacy, safety, and mechanism of action.

Authors:  Tianhong Dai; Asheesh Gupta; Ying-Ying Huang; Rui Yin; Clinton K Murray; Mark S Vrahas; Margaret E Sherwood; George P Tegos; Michael R Hamblin
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2012-12-21       Impact factor: 5.191

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.