Functional relationship between bacterial cell density and the efficacy of antibiotics

Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy

Volumn 63, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 745-757

  Udekwu, Klas I ^a   Parrish, Nicholas ^a   Ankomah, Peter ^a   Baquero, Fernando ^b   Levin, Bruce R ^a  

^a EMORY UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b HOSPITAL RAMÓN Y CAJAL   (Spain)

Author keywords

Density; Inoculum; MIC; Pharmacodynamics

Indexed keywords

CIPROFLOXACIN; DAPTOMYCIN; OXACILLIN; VANCOMYCIN;

ARTICLE; BACTERIAL CELL; BACTERICIDAL ACTIVITY; BIOASSAY; CELL DENSITY; CONCENTRATION (PARAMETERS); CONTROLLED STUDY; IN VITRO STUDY; INOCULATION; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; MINIMUM INHIBITORY CONCENTRATION; NONHUMAN; PHARMACODYNAMICS; PHARMACOKINETICS; STAPHYLOCOCCUS AUREUS;

EID: 62549089300     PISSN: 03057453     EISSN: 14602091     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jac/dkn554     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Blaser J, Stone BB, Groner MC et al. Comparative study with enoxacin and netilmicin in a pharmacodynamic model to determine importance of ratio of antibiotic peak concentration to MIC for bactericidal activity and emergence of resistance. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1987; 31: 1054-60.
2. Fantin B, Leggett J, Ebert S et al. Correlation between in vitro and in vivo activity of antimicrobial agents against gram-negative bacilli in a murine infection model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1991; 35: 1413-22.
3. Drusano GL, Johnson DE, Rosen M et al. Pharmacodynamics of a fluoroquinolone antimicrobial agent in a neutropenic rat model of Pseudomonas sepsis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1993; 37: 483-90.
4. Forrest A, Nix DE, Ballow CH et al. Pharmacodynamics of intravenous ciprofloxacin in seriously ill patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1993; 37: 1073-81.
5. Craig WA. Interrelationship between pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in determining dosage regimens for broad-spectrum cephalosporins. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 1995; 22: 89-96.
6. Vinks AA. The application of population pharmacokinetic modeling to individualized antibiotic therapy. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2002; 19: 313-22.
7. Mouton JW. Impact of pharmacodynamics on breakpoint selection for susceptibility testing. Infect Dis Clin North Am 2003; 17: 579-98.
8. Drusano GL. Antimicrobial pharmacodynamics: Critical interactions of 'bug and drug'. Nat Rev 2004; 2: 289-300.
9. RxKinetics. antibiotic pk pd. http://www.rxkinetics.com/ antibiotic_pk_pd.html (16 December 2008, date last accessed).
10. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. Fifteenth Informational Supplement. CLSI, Wayne, PA, 2005.
11. Amsterdam D. Susceptibility testing of antimicrobials in liquid media. In: Lorian V, ed. Antibiotics in Laboratory Medicine. Baltimore: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2005; 61-144.
12. Hobby G, Dawson M. Effect of growth rate of bacteria on action of penicillin. Proc Soc Exp Biol 1944; 56: 181-4.
13. Tuomanen E, Cozens R, Tosch W et al. The rate of killing of Escherichia coli by beta-lactam antibiotics is strictly proportional to the rate of bacterial growth. J Gen Microbiol 1986; 132: 1297-304.
14. Eng RH, Padberg FT, Smith SM et al. Bactericidal effects of antibiotics on slowly growing and nongrowing bacteria. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1991; 35: 1824-8.
15. Bigger J. Treatment of Staphylococcal infections with penicillin. Lancet 1944; 2: 497-500.
16. Balaban NQ, Merrin J, Chait R et al. Bacterial persistence as a phenotypic switch. Science 2004; 305: 1622-5.
17. Wiuff C, Zappala RM, Regoes RR et al. Phenotypic tolerance: antibiotic enrichment of noninherited resistance in bacterial populations. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2005; 49: 1483-94.
18. Brooun A, Liu S, Lewis K. A dose-response study of antibiotic resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2000; 44: 640-6.
19. Ashby MJ, Neale JE, Knott SJ et al. Effect of antibiotics on non-growing planktonic cells and biofilms of Escherichia coli. J Antimicrob Chemother 1994; 33: 443-52.
20. Gilbert P, Collier PJ, Brown MR. Influence of growth rate on susceptibility to antimicrobial agents: Biofilms, cell cycle, dormancy, and stringent response. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1990; 34 1865-8.
21. Brown MRW, Allison DG, Gilbert P. Resistance of bacterial biofilms to antibiotics: A growth-rate related effect? J Antimicrob Chemother 1988; 22: 777-80.
22. Stewart PS. Mechanisms of antibiotic resistance in bacterial biofilms. Int J Med Microbiol 2002; 292: 107-13.
23. Keren I, Shah D, Spoering A et al. Specialized persister cells and the mechanism of multidrug tolerance in Escherichia coli. J Bact 2004; 186: 8172-80.
24. Lewis K. Riddle of biofilm resistance. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2001; 45: 999-1007.
25. Regoes RR, Wiuff C, Zappala RM et al. Pharmacodynamic functions: A multiparameter approach to the design of antibiotic treatment regimens. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2004; 48: 3670-6.
26. Wiuff C, Andersson DI. Antibiotic treatment in vitro of phenotypically tolerant bacterial populations. J Antimicrob Chemother 2007; 59 254-63.
27. Barry AL, Badal RE, Hawkinson RW. Influence of inoculum growth phase on microdilution susceptibility tests. J Clin Microbiol 1983; 18 645-51.
28. 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: 149-58.
29. Lowdin E, Odenholt I, Cars O. In vitro studies of pharmacodynamic properties of vancomycin against Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1998; 42 2739-44.
30. Mouton JW, Vinks AA. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modelling of antibacterials in vitro and in vivo using bacterial growth and kill kinetics: The minimum inhibitory concentration versus stationary concentration. Clin Pharmacokinet 2005; 44: 201-10.
31. Mouton JW, Vinks AA. Relationship between minimum inhibitory concentration and stationary concentration revisited: Growth rates and minimum bactericidal concentrations. Clin Pharmacokinet 2005; 44: 767-8.
32. Eagle H. Experimental approach to the problem of treatment failure with penicillin. Am J Med 1952; 13: 389-99.
33. McDermott W. Microbial Persistence. Yale J Biol Med 1958; 30 257-91
34. Levin BR, Rozen DE. Non-inherited antibiotic resistance. Nat Rev 2006; 4: 556-62.
35. Garrod LP, Waterworth PM. Effect of medium composition on the apparent sensitivity of Pseudomonas aeruginosa to gentamicin. J Clin Pathol 1969; 22: 534-8.
36. Grayson M, Eliopoulos G, Ferraro M et al. Effect of varying pH on the susceptibility of Campylobacter pylori to antimicrobial agents. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1989; 8: 888-9.
37. Baudoux P, Bles N, Lemaire S et al. Combined effect of pH and concentration on the activities of gentamicin and oxacillin against Staphylococcus aureus in pharmacodynamic models of extracellular and intracellular infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 2007: 59 246-53.
38. Soriano F, Santamaria M, Ponte C et al. In vivo significance of the inoculum effect of antibiotics on Escherichia coli. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1988; 7: 410-2.
39. Soriano F, Ponte C, Santamaria M et al. Relevance of the inoculum effect of antibiotics in the outcome of experimental infections caused by Escherichia coli. J Antimicrob Chemother 1990; 25: 621-7.
40. Craig W, Ebert S. Killing and regrowth of bacteria in vitro: A review. Scand J Infect Dis Suppl 1990; 74: 63-70.
41. LaPlante KL, Rybak MJ. Impact of high-inoculum Staphylococcus aureus on the activities of nafcillin, vancomycin, linezolid, and daptomycin, alone and in combination with gentamicin, in an in vitro pharmacodynamic model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2004; 48: 4665-72.
42. Agency TEM. Summary of Product Characteristics for Antimicrobial Medicinal Products: Directive 75/318/EEC. 1996.
43. Thrupp LD, Cleeland R, Jones RN et al. General guidelines for clinical bacteriology. Infectious Diseases Society of America and the Food and Drug Administration. Clin Infect Dis 1992, 15 Suppl 1: S339-46.
44. US Department of Health and Human Services. Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Antimicrobial Susceptibility Test (AST) Systems; Guidance for Industry and the FDA. Washington, DC: US, DHHS, 2007.
45. Gunderson BW, Ross GH, Ibrahim KH et al. What do we really know about antibiotic pharmacodynamics? Pharmacotherapy 2001; 21: 302-18S.
46. Queenan AM, Foleno B, Gowilley C et al. Effects of inoculum and beta-lactamase activity in AmpC- and extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) producing Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae clinical isolates tested by using NCCLS ESBL methodology. J Clin Microbiol 2004; 42: 269-75.
47. Craig WA, Bhavnani SM, Ambrose PG. The inoculum effect: Fact or artifact? Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2004; 50: 229-30.
48. Gudmundeson S, Einarsson S, Erlendsdottir H et al. The post-antibiotic effect of antimicrobial combinations in a neutropenic murine thigh infection model. J Antimicrob Chemother 1993; 31 Suppl D: 177-91.
49. 2+ and albumin on these drugs. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1991; 35: 1710-6.
50. Barcia-Macay M, Seral C, Mingeot-Leclercq M-P et al. Pharmacodynamic evaluation of the intracellular activities of antibiotics against Staphylococcus aureus in a model of THP-1 macrophages. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2006; 50: 841-51.
51. Clemett D, Markham A. Linezolid. Drugs 2009; 59: 815-27.
52. Winshell EB, Rosenkranz HS. Nalidixic acid and the metabolism of Escherichia coli. J Bact 1970; 104: 1168-75.
53. Crumplin GC, Smith JT. Nalidixic acid: An antibacterial paradox. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1975; 8: 251-61.
54. Lewin CS, Morrissey I, Smith JT. The mode of action of quinolones: The paradox in activity of low and high concentrations and activity in the anaerobic environment. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1991; 10 240-8.
55. Phillips I, Culebras E, Moreno F et al. Induction of the SOS response by new 4-quinolones. J Antimicrob Chemother 1987; 20 631-8.
56. Smith JT, Mutational resistance to 4-quinolone antibacterial agents. Eur J Clin Microbiol 1984; 3: 347-50.
57. Kohanski MA, Dwyer DJ, Hayete B et al. A common mechanism of cellular death induced by bactericidal antibiotics. Cell 2007: 130: 797-810.
58. Lipsitch M, Levin BR. The population dynamics of antimicrobial chemotherapy. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1997; 41: 363-73.
59. Dong Y, Zhao X, Kreiswirth BN et al. Mutant prevention concentration as a measure of antibiotic potency: Studies with clinical isolates of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2000; 44: 2581-4.
60. Zhao X, Drlica K. Restricting the selection of antibiotic-resistant mutant bacteria: Measurement and potential use of the mutant selection window. J Infect Dis 2002; 185: 561-5.
61. Drlica K, Zhao X. Mutant selection window hypothesis updated. Clin Infect Dis 2007; 44: 681-8.
62. Eagle H, Fleischman R, Musselman A. The bactericidal action of penicillin in vivo: The participation of the host, and the slow recovery of the surviving organisms. Ann Intern Med 1950; 33: 544-71.
63. Eagle H. The effect of the size of the inoculum and the age of the infection on the curative dose of penicillin in experimental infections with streptococci, pneumococci, and Treponema pallidum. J Exp Med 1949; 90: 595-607.
64. Kumar A, Roberts D, Wood KE et al. Duration of hypotension before initiation of effective antimicrobial therapy is the critical determinant of survival in human septic shock. Crit Care Med 2006; 34: 1589-96.