Achieving an optimal outcome in the treatment of infections. The role of clinical pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of antimicrobials

Clinical Pharmacokinetics

Volumn 37, Issue 1, 1999, Pages 1-16

  Li, Ronald C ^a,b   Zhu, Min ^a   Schentag, Jerome J ^c,d  

^a and Hong Kong Branch of CAS Center for Excellence in Animal Evolution and Genetics   (Hong Kong)

^b PFIZER INC   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO   (United States)

^d Millard Fillmore Gates Circle Hospital   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AMINOGLYCOSIDE ANTIBIOTIC AGENT; ANTIINFECTIVE AGENT; BETA LACTAM ANTIBIOTIC;

ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE; ANTIBIOTIC SENSITIVITY; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; CONCENTRATION RESPONSE; DRUG ABSORPTION; DRUG BLOOD LEVEL; DRUG ELIMINATION; DRUG MONITORING; HUMAN; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; MINIMUM INHIBITORY CONCENTRATION; NEPHROTOXICITY; OTOTOXICITY; POSTANTIBIOTIC EFFECT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 0032790295     PISSN: 03125963     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2165/00003088-199937010-00001     Document Type: Review

References (82)

1. 1. Schentag JJ, Ballow CH, Paladino JA, et al. Dual individualization with antibiotics: integrated antibiotic management strategies for use in hospitals. In: Evans WE, Schentag JJ, Jusko WJ, editors. Applied pharmacokinetics: principles of therapeutic drug monitoring. 3rd ed. Vancouver: Applied Therapeutics Int., 1992: 17/1-20
2. 2. Federspil P, Schatzle W, Tiesler E. Pharmacokinetics and ototoxicity of gentamicin, tobramycin, and amikacin. J Infect Dis 1976; 134 Suppl.: S200-5
3. 3. Tablan OC, Reyes MP, Rintelmann WF, et al. Renal and auditory toxicity of high dose, prolonged therapy with gentamicin and tohramycin in Pseudomonas endocarditis. J Infect Dis 1984; 149 (2): 257-63
4. 4. Dahlgren JG, Anderson ET, Hewitt WL. Gentamicin blood levels: a guide to nephrotoxicity. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1975; 8 (1): 58-62
5. 5. Smith CR. Lipsky JJ, Lietman PS. Relationship between amino-glycoside-induced nephrotoxicity and auditory toxicity Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1979; 15 (6): 780-2
6. 6. Craig WA. once daily versus multiple-daily dosing of amino-glycosides. J Chemother 1995; 7 Suppl. 2: 47-52
7. 7. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. Methods for dilution antimicrobial susceptibility tests for bacteria that grow aerobically. 3rd ed. Approved standard. NCCLS document M7-A3. Villanova, PA: National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards, 1993
8. 8. Garrett ER. Kinetics of antimicrobial action. Scand J Infect Dis 1978; 14 Suppl.: 54-85
9. 9. Garrett ER. Heman-Ackah SM. Microbial kinetics and dependencies of individual and combined antibiotic inhibitors of protein synthesis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1973; 4: 574-84
10. 10. Garrett ER, Wright OK. Quantitative adherence of sulfonamide action on microbial growth to a receptor-site model. J Pharm Sci 1967; 56: 1576-85
11. 11. Li RC, Nix DE, Schentag JJ. Pharmacodynamic modeling of bacterial kinetics: β-lactam antibiotics against Escherichia coli. J Pharm Sci 1994; 83: 970-5
12. 12. Li RC. Simultaneous pharmacodynamic analysis of the lag and bactericidal phases exhibited by β-Lactams against Escherichia coli. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1996; 40: 2306-10
13. 13. Ma HHM, Chiu FCK, Li RC. Mechanistic investigation of the reduction in antimicrobial activity of ciprofloxacin by metal cations. Pharm Res 1997; 14: 366-70
14. 14. Hull MJ, Middleton RF, Westmacott D. The fractional inhibitory concentration (FIC) index as a measure of synergy. J Antimicrob Chemother 1983; 11: 427-33
15. 15. Li RC, Schentag JJ, Nix DE. The FME method: a new way to characterize the effect of antibiotic combinations and other nonlinear pharmacologic responses. Antimicroh Agents Chemother 1993; 37: 523-31
16. 16. Li RC, Nix DE, Schentag JJ. Performance of the fractional maximal effect method: comparative interaction studies of ciprofloxacin and protein synthesis inhibitors. J Chemother 1996; 8: 25-32
17. 17. Hyatt JM, Nix DE, Strattom CW, et al. In vitro pharmacodynamics of piperacillin, piperacillin-tazobactam, and ciprofloxacin alone and in combination against Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Enterobacter cloacae, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1995; 39: 1711-6
18. 18. Nix DE, Goodwin SD, Peloquin CA, et al. Antibiotic tissue penetration and its relevance: impact of tissue penetration on infection response. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1991; 35 (10): 1953-9
19. 19. Kunin CM, Craig WA. Significance of serum protein and tissue binding of antimicrobial agents. Annu Rev Med 1976; 27: 287-300
20. 20. Peterson LR, Moody JA, Fasching CE, et al. Influence of protein binding on therapeutic efficacy of cefoperazone. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1989; 33: 566-8
21. 21. Li RC, Cheng NC, Yung L. Impact of protein binding on antimicrobial activity: application of the gradient plale technique on ceftriaxone. 1997 Annual Meeting of the American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists: 1997 Nov 2-6: Boston. Pharm Res 1997; 14(11): S71
22. 22. Nicolau DP, Quintiliani R, Nightingale CH. Antibiotic kinetics and dynamics for the clinican. Med Clin North Am 1995; 79 (3): 477-95
23. 23. Craig WA. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic parameters: rationale for antibacterial dosing of mice and men. Clin Infect Dis 1998; 26: 1-12
24. 24. Hyatt JM, McKinnon PS, Zimmer GS, et al. The importance of pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic surrogate markers to outcome: focus on antibacterial agents. Clin Pharmacokinet 1995; 28 (2): 143-60
25. 25. Moore RD, Lietman PS, Smith CR. Clinical response to amino glycoside therapy: importance of the ratio of peak concentration to minimal inhibitory concentration. J Infect Dis 1987; 155 (1): 93-9
26. 26. Lacy MK, Nicolau DP, Nightingale CH, et al. The pharmacodynamics of aminoglycosides. Clin Infect Dis 1998; 27: 23-7
27. 27. Forrest A, Ballow CH, Nix DE, et al. Development of a population pharmacokinetic model and optimal sampling strategics for intravenous ciprolloxacin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1993; 37 (5): 1065-72
28. 28. Forrest A, Nix DE, Ballow CH, et al. Pharmacodynamics of intravenous ciprofloxacin in seriously ill patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1993; 1073-81
29. 29. Schentag JJ, Nix DE, Adelman MH. Mathematical examination of dual individualization principles (I): relationships between AUC above MIC and area under the inhibitory curve for cefmenoxime, ciprofloxacin, and tobramycin. Drug Intell Clin Pharm 1991; 25 (10): 1050-7
30. 30. Goss TF, Forrest A, Nix DE, et al. 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. Ann Pharmacother 1944; 28 (7-8): 863-8
31. 31. Luzier A, Goss TF, Cumho TJ, et al. Mathematical examination of dual individualization principles (III): development of a scoring system for pneumonia staging and quantitation of response in antibiotics: results in cefmenoxime-treated patients. Ann Pharmacother 1992; 26 (11): 1358-65
32. 32. Nix DE, Sands MF, Peloguin CA, et al. Dual individualization of intravenous ciprofloxacin in patients with nusocomial lower respiratory tract infection. Am J Med 1987; 84 (4A); 352-6
33. 33. Hamano S, Tsuji A, Asano T, et al. Kinetic analysis and characterization of the bacterial regrowth after treatment of Escherichia coli with β-lactam antibiotics. J Pharm Sci 1984; 73 (10): 1422-7
34. 34. Tsuji A, Hamano S. Asano T, et al. Microbial kinetics of β-lactam antibiotics against Escherichia coli. J Pharm Sci 1984; 73 (10): 1418-22
35. 35. Davies J. Inactivation of antibiotics and the dissemination of resistance genes. Science 1994; 264 (5157): 375-82
36. 36. Nikaido H. Prevention of drug access to bacterial targets: permeability barriers and active efflux. Science 1994; 264 (5157): 382-8
37. 37. Yang YJ, Livermore DM, Williams RJ. Chromosomal β-lactamase expression and antibiotic resistance in Enterobacter cloacae. J Med Microbiol 1988; 25 (3): 227-33
38. 38. Arthur M, Brisson-Noel A, Courvalin P. Origin and evolution of genes specifying resistance to macrolide, lincosamide and streptogramin antibiotics: data and hypotheses. J Antimicrob Chemother 1987; 20 (6): 783-802
39. 39. Mattie H. A mathematical description of short-term effects of β-lactam antibiotics on bacterial growth in vitro. Curr Microbiol 1978; 1: 106-9
40. 40. Guerillot F, Carrel G, Flandrois JP. Mathematical model for comparison of time-killing curves. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1993; 37: 1685-4
41. 41. Grasso S, Memardi G, Carneri I, et al. New in vitro model to study the effect of antibiotic concentration and rate of elimination on antibacterial activity. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1978; 13: 570-6
42. 42. Nishida M, Murakawa T, Kamimura T, et al. Bactericidal activity of cephatosporins in an in vitro model simulating serum levels. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1978; 6: 6-12
43. 43. Bergan T, Carlsen IB, Fuglesang JE. An in vitro model for monitoring bacterial responses to antibiotic agents under simulated in vivo conditions. Infection 1980; 8: S96-S102
44. 44. Grasso S. Historical review of in-vitro models. J Antimicrob Chemother 1985; 15 Suppl.: 99-102
45. 45. Reeves DS. Advantages and disadvantages of an in vitro model with two compartments connected by a dialyser: results of experiments with ciprofloxacin. J Antimicrob Chemother 1985; 15 Suppl.: 159-67
46. 46. Blaser J, Stone BB, Zinner SH. Two compartment kinetic model with multiple artificial capillary units. J Antimicrob Chemother 1985; 15 Suppl.: 131-7
47. 47. Sous H, Hirsch I. Bactericidal efficacy of cefmenoxime in an in vitro model system simulating tissue kinetics. 13th International Congress of Chemotherapy, Vienna, Austria. Contribution SE 8.3/1-2
48. 48. Blaser J. In-vitro model for simultaneous simulation of the serum kinetics of two drugs with different half-lives. J Antimicrob Chemother 1985; 15 Suppl.: 125-30
49. 49. Shah PM. Simultaneous simulation of two different concentration time curves in vitro. J Antimicrob Chemother 1985; 15 Suppl.: 261-4
50. 50. Zabinski RA, Vance-Bryan K, Krinke AJ, et al. Evaluation of activity of temafloxacin against Bacteroides fragilis by an in vitro pharmacodynamic system. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1993; 37: 2454-8
51. 51. Garrison MW, Vance-Bryan K, Larson TA, et al. Assessment of effects of protein binding on daptomycin and vancomycin killing of Staphylococcus aureus by using an in vitro pharmacodynamic model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1990); 34: 1925-31
52. 52. Dalhoff A. Differences between bacteria grown in vitro and in vivo. J Antimicrob Chemother 1985; 15 Suppl.: 175-95
53. 53. Sceberg AH, Wiedeman B. Application of in vitro models: development of resistance. J Antimicrob Chemother 1985; 15 Suppl.: 241-9
54. 54. Gilbert P. The theory and relevance of continuous culture. J Antimicrob Chemother 1985; 15 Suppl.: 1-6
55. 55. Lorian V, Satta G, Differences between in vitro and in vivo studies [letter to the editor]. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1988; 32: 1600-1
56. 56. Haag R, Lexa P, Werkhauser I. Artifacts in dilution pharmacokinetic models caused by adherent bacteria. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1986; 29: 765-8
57. 57. Nolting A, Dalla Costa T, Rand KH, et al. Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modeling: of the antibiotic effect of pipericillin in vitro. Pharm Res 1996; 13 (1): 91-6
58. 58. Madaras-Kelly KJ, Ostergaard BE, Havde LB, et al. Twenty-four-hour area under the concentration-time curve/MIC ratio as a generic predictor of fluoroquinolone antimicrobial effect by using three strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and an in vitro pharmacodynamic model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1996; 40 (3): 627-32
59. 59. Chavunet P, Dalle F, Delisle P, et al. Experimental efficacy of combined ceftriaxone and amoxycillin on penicillin-resistant and broad-spectrum cephalosporin-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae infection. J Antimicrob Chemother 1998; 41: 237-46
60. 60. Zhi JG, Nightingale CH, Quintiliani R. Microbial pharmacodynamics of piperacillin in neutropenic mice of systematic infection due to Pseudomonas aeruginosa. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 1988; 16: 355-75
61. 61. Craig WA, Redington J, Ebert SC. Pharmacodynamics of amikacin in vitro and in mouse thigh and lung infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 1991; 27 Suppl. C: 29-40
62. 62. Craig WA. Antimicrobial resistance issues of the future. Diagn Microhiol Infect Dis 1996; 25: 213-7
63. 63. Zhi JG, Nightingale CH, Quintiliani R. Impact of dosage regimens on the efficacy of piperacillin against Pseudomonas aeruginosa in neutropenic mice. J Pharm Sci 1988; 77: 991-2
64. 64. Vogelman B, Gudmundsson S, Leggett J, et al. Correlation of antimicrobial pharmacokinetic parameters with therapeutic efficacy in an animal model. J Infect Dis 1988; 158 (4); 831-47
65. 65. Craig WA, Gudmundsson S. The postantibiotic effect. In: Lorian V, editor. Antihiotics in laboratory medicine. 3rd ed. Baltimore: William & Wilkins Co., 1991; 403-31
66. 66. Zhanel GC, Hoban DJ, Harding GKM. The postantibiotic effect: a review of in vitro and in vivo data. DICP Ann Pharmacother 1991; 25: 153-63
67. 67. Li RC, Lee SW, Kong CH. Correlation between bactericidal activity and postantibiotic effect for five antibiotics with different mechanisms of action. J Antimicrob Chemother 1997; 40: 39-45
68. 68. Li RC, Zhu ZY, Lee SW, et al. Antibiotic exposure and its relationship to postantihiotic effect and bactericidal activity: constant versus exponentially decreasing tobramycin levels against Pseudomonas neruginosa. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1997; 41: 1808-11
69. 69. Zhu ZY, Li RC. Impact of pharmacokinetics on the postantibiotic effect exhibited by Pseudomonas aeruginosa following tobramycin exposure: application of an in vitro model. J Antimicrob Chemother 1998; 42: 61-5
70. 70. Craig WA. Post-antibiotic effects in experimental infection models: relationship to in-vitro phenomena and to treatment of infections in man. J Antimicrob Chemother 1993; 31 Suppl. D: 149-58
71. 71. Vogelman B, Gudmundsson S, Turnidge J, et al. In vivo postantibiotic effect in a thigh infection in neutropenic mice. J Infect Dis 1988; 157: 287-98
72. 72. Prins JM, Buller HR, Kuijper EJ, et al. Once versus thrice daily gentamicin in patient with serious infections. Lancet 1993; 341: 335-9
73. 73. Firsov AA, Vostrov SN, Shevchenko AA, et al. A new approach to in vitro comparisons of antibiotics in dynamic models: equivalent area under the curve/MIC breakpoints and equiefficient doses of trovafloxacin and ciprofloxacin against bacteria of similar susceptibilities. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1998,42: 2841-7
74. 74. Schentag JJ, Nix DE, Forrest A, et al. AUIC: the universal parameter within the constraint of a reasonable dosing interval. Ann Pharmacother 1996; 30 (9): 1029-31
75. 75. McGowan Jr JE. Antimicrobial resistante in hospital organisms and its relation to antibiotic use. Rev Infect Dis 1983; 5: 1033-48
76. 76. Gaynes RP, Culver DH, Horan TC, et al. Trends in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in United States hospitals. Infect Dis Clin Pract 1992; 2: 452-5
77. 77. Chan WC, Li RC, Ling JM, et al. Markly different rates and resistance profiles exhibited by seven commonly used and newer β-lactams on the selection of resistant variants of Enterobacter cloacae. J Antimicrob Chemother 1999; 43: 55-60
78. 78. Fung-Tomc JC, Gradelski E, Huczko E, et al. Differences in the resistant variants of Enterobacter cloacae selected by extended-spectrum cephalosporins. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1996; 40: 1289-93
79. 79. Stapleton P, Shannon K, Phillips I. The ability of β-lactam antibiotics to select mutants with depressed β-lactumasc synthesis from Citrobacter freundii. J Antimicrob Chemother 1995; 36; 483-96
80. 80. Wiedernann B, Atkinson B. A. Susceptibility to antibiotics: species incidence and trends. In: Lorian V, editor. Antibiotics in laboratory medicine. 3rd ed. Baltimore: William & Wilkins Co., 1991; 962-1062
81. 81. Thomas JK, Forrest A, Bhavnani SM, et al. Pharmacodynamic evaluation of factors associated with the development of bacterial resistance in acutely ill patients during therapy. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1998; 42 (3): 521-7
82. 82. Schentag JJ, Birmingham MC, Paladino JA, et al. In nosocomial pneumonia, optimizing antibiotics other than aminoglycosides is a more important determinant of successful clinical outcome, and a better means of avoiding resistance. Semin Respir Infect 1997; 12 (4): 278-93