Antimicrobial breakpoints for Gram-negative aerobic bacteria based on pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic models with Monte Carlo simulation

Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy

Volumn 61, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 621-628

  Frei, Christopher R ^a,b   Wiederhold, Nathan P ^a,b   Burgess, David S ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER AT SAN ANTONIO   (United States)

Author keywords

lactam antibiotics; Acinetobacter; Computer modelling; Pseudomonas; Stochastic

Indexed keywords

AMINOGLYCOSIDE DERIVATIVE; ANTIINFECTIVE AGENT; AZTREONAM; BETA LACTAM; CARBAPENEM DERIVATIVE; CEFEPIME; CEFTAZIDIME; CEFTIZOXIME; CEFTRIAXONE; CEPHALOSPORIN DERIVATIVE; CIPROFLOXACIN; ERTAPENEM; GENTAMICIN; IMIPENEM; LEVOFLOXACIN; MEROPENEM; MONOBACTAM DERIVATIVE; PENICILLIN DERIVATIVE; PIPERACILLIN PLUS TAZOBACTAM; QUINOLONE DERIVATIVE; TOBRAMYCIN;

ACINETOBACTER BAUMANNII; ANTIBIOTIC SENSITIVITY; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTICLE; COMPUTER MODEL; ENTEROBACTERIACEAE; EUROPE; MINIMUM INHIBITORY CONCENTRATION; MONTE CARLO METHOD; NONHUMAN; PSEUDOMONAS AERUGINOSA;

ANTI-INFECTIVE AGENTS; GRAM-NEGATIVE AEROBIC BACTERIA; HUMANS; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PHARMACOKINETICS;

EID: 40049093397     PISSN: 03057453     EISSN: 14602091     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jac/dkm536     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing: Seventeenth Informational Supplement M100-S17. CLSI, Wayne, PA, USA, 2007.
2. Heyder J, Rudolf G. Mathematical models of particle deposition in the human respiratory tract. J Aerosol Sci 1984; 15: 697-707.
3. Ambrose PG. Monte Carlo simulation in the evaluation of susceptibility breakpoints: PredIcting the future: insights from the society of infectious diseases pharmacists. Pharmacotherapy 2006; 26: 129-34.
4. Burgess DS, Frei CR. Comparison of β-lactam regimens for the treatment of Gram-negative pulmonary infections in the intensive care unit based on pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics. J Antimicrob Chemother 2005; 56: 893-8.
5. Drusano GL. Antimicrobial pharmacodynamics: Critical interactions of 'bug and drug': Nat Rev Microbiol 2004; 2: 269-300.
6. Dudley MN, Ambrose PG. Pharmacodynamics in the study of drug resistance and establishing in vitro susceptibility breakpoints: Ready for prime time. Curr Opin Microbiol 2000; 3: 515-21.
7. Kahlmeter G,. Brown DF, Goldstein FW et al, European harmonization of MIC breakpoints for antimicrobial susceptibility testing of bacteria: J Antimicrob Chemother 2003; 52: 145-8.
8. Kuti JL, Nightingale CH, Nicolau DP. Optimizing Pharmacodynamic target attainment using the MYSTIC antibiogram: Data collected in North America in 2002. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2004; 48: 2464-70.
9. MacGowan A, Rogers C, Bowker K. In vitro models, in vivo models, and pharmacokinetics: What can we learn from in vitro models? Clin Infect Dis 2001; 33 Suppl 3: S214-20.
10. Mouton JW. Impact of pharmacodynamics on breakpoint selection for susceptibility testing. Infect Dis Clin North Am 2003; 17: 579-98.
11. Smith HJ, Noreddin AM, Siemens CG et. al. Designing fluoroquinolone breakpoints for Streptococcus pneumoniae by using genetics instead of pharmacokinetics-pharmacodynamics. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2064; 48: 3630-5.
12. Tam VH, McKinnon PS, Akins RL et al. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of cefepime in patients with various degrees of renal function. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2003; 47: 1853-61.
13. White RL. What in vitro models of infection can and cannot do. Pharmacotherapy 2001; 21: 292-301S.
14. Kahlmeter G. EUCAST procedure for harmonizing and defining breakpoints. http://www.srga.org/EUCAST/bpsetting.htm (17 July 2007, date last accessed).
15. Barbhaiya RH, Forgue ST, Gleason CR et al. Pharmacokinetics of cefepime after single and multiple intravenous administrations in healthy subjects. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1992; 36: 552-7.
16. Chien SC, Rogge MC, Gisclon LG et al. Pharmacokinetic profile of levofloxacin following once-daily 500-milligram oral or intravenous doses. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1997; 41: 2256-60.
17. Chien SC, Wong FA, Fowler CL et al. Double-blind evaluation of the safety and pharmacokinetics of multiple oral once-daily 750-milligram and 1-gram doses of levofloxacin in healthy volunteers. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1998; 42: 885-8.
18. Demczar DJ, Nafziger AN, Bertino JS, Jr. Pharmacokinetics of gentamicin at traditional versus high doses: Implications for once-daily aminoglycoside dosing. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1997; 41: 1115-9.
19. Dreetz M, Hamacher J, Eller J et al. Serum bactericidal activities and comparative pharmacokinetics of meropenem and imipenem-cilastatin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1996; 40: 105-9.
20. Guglielmo BJ, Flaherty JF, Woods TM et al. Pharmacokinetics of cefoperazone and tobramycin alone and in combination. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1987; 31: 264-6.
21. Lettieri JT, Rogge MC, Kaiser L et al. Pharmacokinetic profiles of ciprofloxacin after single intravenous and oral doses. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1992; 36: 993-6.
22. Luthy R, Blaser J, Bonetti A et al. Comparative multiple-dose pharmacokinetics of cefotaxime, moxalactam, and ceftazidime. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1981; 20: 567-75.
23. Majumdar AK, Musson DG, Birk KL et al. Pharmacokinetics of ertapenem in healthy young volunteers. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2002; 46: 3506-11.
24. Neu HC, Srinivasan S. Pharmacology of ceftizoxime compared with that of cefamandole. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1981; 20: 366-9.
25. Occhipinti DJ, Pendland SL, Schoonover LL et al. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of two multiple-dose piperacillin-tazobactam regimens. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1997; 41: 2511-7.
26. Paradis D, Vallee F, Allard S et al. Comparative study of pharmacokinetics and serum bactericidal activities of cefpirome; ceftazidime, ceftriaxone, imipenem, and ciprofloxacin. Antimicrob Agents. Chemother 1992; 36; 2085-92.
27. Pletz MW, Rau M, Bulitta J et al. Ertapenem pharmacokinetics and impact on intestinal microflora, in comparison to those of ceftriaxone, after multiple dosing in male and female volunteers. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2004; 48: 3765-72.
28. Scully BE, Swabb EA, Neu HC. Pharmacology of aztreonam after intravenous infusion. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1983; 24: 18-22.
29. Shah A, Lettieri J, Kaiser L et al. Comparative pharmacokinetics and safety of ciprofloxacin 400 mg iv thrice daily versus 750 mg po twice daily. J Antimicrob Chemother 1994; 33: 795-801.
30. Turnidge JD. The pharmacodynamics of β-lactams. Clin Infect Dis 1998; 27: 10-22.
31. Meropenem Yearly Susceptibility Test Information Collection (MYSTIC). http://www.mystic-data.org (8 January 2007, date last accessed).
32. DeRyke CA, Kuti. JL, Nicolau DP. Reevaluation of current susceptibility breakpoints for Gram-negative rods based on pharmacodynamic assessment. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2007; 58: 337-44.
33. Ambrose PG, Grasela DM, Grasela TH et al. Pharmacodynamics of fluoroquinolones against Streptococcus pneumoniae in patients with community-acquired respiratory tract infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2001; 45: 2793-7.
34. Frei CR, Burgess DS. Continuous infusion β-lactams for intensive care unit pulmonary infections. Clin Microbiol Infect 2005; 11: 418-21.
35. Lodise TP, Jr,. Lomaestro B, Drusano GL. Piperacillin-tazobactam for Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection: Clinical implications of an extended-infusion dosing strategy. Clin Infect Dis 2007; 44: 357-63.
36. Kuti JL, Horowitz S, Nightingale CH et al. Comparison of pharmacodynamic target attainment between healthy subjects and patients for ceftazidime and meropenem. Pharmacotherapy 2005; 25: 935-41.
37. Bhavnani SM, Ambrose PG, Jones RN et al. To split, or not to split a MIC distribution that is the question: Setting susceptibility breakpoints. In: Abstracts of the Forty-seventh Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, Chicago, IL, 2007 Abstract D-222, p. 153. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, DC, USA.
38. Craig WA. Interrelationship between pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in determining dosage regimens for broad-spectrum cephalosporins. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 1995; 22: 89-96.
39. Craig WA. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic parameters: Rationale for antibacterial dosing of mice and men. Clin Infect Dis 1998; 26 1-10
40. Andes D, Craig WA. Animal model pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics: A critical review. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2002; 19: 261-8.
41. Craig WA, Kiem S, Andes DR. Free drug 24 h AUC/MIC is the PK/PD target that correlates with in vivo efficacy of macrolides, azalides, ketolides, and clindamycin, In: Abstracts of the Forty-second Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, San Diego, CA, 2002. Abstract A-1264, p. 14. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, DC, USA.
42. Lacy MK, Nicolau DP, Nightingale C et al. The pharmacodynamics of aminoglycosides. Clin Infect Dis 1998; 27: 23-7.
43. Ambrose PG, Bhavnani SM, Rubino CM et al. Pharmacokinetics-pharmacodynamics of antimicrobial therapy: It's not just for mice anymore. Clin Infect Dis 2007; 44: 79-86.
44. Drusano. GL. Prevention of resistance: A goal for dose selection for antimicrobial agents. Clin Infect Dis 2003; 36 Suppl 1: S42-50.