Concentration - Resistance relationships with Pseudomonas aeruginosa exposed to doripenem and ciprofloxacin in an in vitro model

Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy

Volumn 68, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 881-887

  Zinner, Stephen H ^a   Gilbert, Deborah ^b   Greer, Kenneth ^b   Portnoy, Yury A ^c   Firsov, Alexander A ^c  

^a MOUNT AUBURN HOSPITAL   (United States)

^b ROGER WILLIAMS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^c GAUSE INSTITUTE OF NEW ANTIBIOTICS   (Russian Federation)

Author keywords

Antimicrobial resistance; Mutant selection; Pharmacodynamics

Indexed keywords

CIPROFLOXACIN; DORIPENEM;

ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE; ANTIBIOTIC SENSITIVITY; ANTIMICROBIAL ACTIVITY; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTICLE; BACTERIAL STRAIN; BACTERIUM MUTANT; CONCENTRATION RESPONSE; CONTROLLED STUDY; MINIMUM INHIBITORY CONCENTRATION; NONHUMAN; PSEUDOMONAS AERUGINOSA; SIMULATION;

ANTI-BACTERIAL AGENTS; CARBAPENEMS; CIPROFLOXACIN; DRUG RESISTANCE, BACTERIAL; HUMANS; MICROBIAL SENSITIVITY TESTS; MUTATION; PSEUDOMONAS AERUGINOSA; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 84875235470     PISSN: 03057453     EISSN: 14602091     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jac/dks463     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Firsov AA, Vostrov SN, Lubenko IY et al. In vitro pharmacodynamic evaluation of the mutant selection window hypothesis using four fluoroquinolones against Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2003; 47: 1604-13.
2. Zinner SH, Lubenko IY, Gilbert D et al. Emergence of resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae in an in vitro dynamic model that simulates moxifloxacin concentrations inside and outside the mutant selection window: related changes in susceptibility, resistance frequency and bacterial killing. J Antimicrob Chemother 2003; 52: 616-22.
3. Firsov AA, Vostrov SV, Lubenko IY et al. ABT492 and levofloxacin: comparison of their pharmacodynamics and their abilities to prevent the selection of resistant Staphylococcus aureus in an in vitro dynamic model. J Antimicrob Chemother 2004; 54: 178-86.
4. Gumbo T, Louie A, Deziel MR et al. Selection of a moxifloxacin dose that suppresses drug resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis, by use of an in vitro pharmacodynamic infection model and mathematical modeling. J Infect Dis 2004; 190: 1642-51.
5. Campion JJ, McNamara PJ, Evans ME. Evolution of ciprofloxacinresistant Staphylococcus aureus in in vitro pharmacokinetic environments. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2004; 48: 4733-44.
6. Tam VH, Louie A, Fritsche TR et al. Impact of drug-exposure intensity and duration of therapy on the emergence of Staphylococcus aureus resistance to a quinolone antimicrobial. J Infect Dis 2007; 195: 1818-27.
7. Tam VH, Louie A, Deziel MR et al. The relationship between quinolone exposures and resistance amplification is characterized by an inverted U: a new paradigm for optimizing pharmacodynamics to counterselect resistance. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2007; 51: 744-7.
8. Singh R, Ledesma KR, Chang KT et al. Pharmacodynamics of moxifloxacin against a high inoculum of Escherichia coli in an in vitro infection model. J Antimicrob Chemother 2009; 64: 556-62.
9. Louie A, Heine HS, VanScoy B et al. Use of an in vitro pharmacodynamic model to derive a moxifloxacin regimen that optimizes kill of Yersinia pestis and prevents emergence of resistance. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2011; 55: 822-30.
10. Gebru E, Choi M-J, Lee S-J et al. Mutant-prevention concentration and mechanism of resistance in clinical isolates and enrofloxacin/ marbofloxacin-selected mutants of Escherichia coli of canine origin. J Med Microbiol 2011; 60: 1512-22.
11. Zhao X, Drlica K. Restricting the selection of antibiotic-resistant mutants: a general strategy derived from fluoroquinolone studies. Clin Infect Dis 2001; 33: 147-56.
12. Firsov AA, Lubenko IY, Smirnova MV et al. Enrichment of fluoroquinolone-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: oscillating ciprofloxacin concentrations simulated at the upper and lower portions of the mutant selection window. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2008; 52: 1924-8.
13. Firsov AA, Smirnova MV, Strukova EN et al. Enrichment of resistant Staphylococcus aureus at ciprofloxacin concentrations simulated within the mutant selection window: bolus versus continuous infusion. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2008; 32: 488-93.
14. Blaser J, Stone BB, Zinner SH. Two compartment kinetic model with multiple artificial capillary units. J Antimicrob Chemother 1985; 15 Suppl A: 131-7.
15. Paterson DL, DePeste DD. Doripenem. Clin Infect Dis 2009; 49: 291-8.
16. Zhanel GG, Wiebe R, Dilay L et al. Comparative review of the carbapenems. Drugs 2010; 67: 1027-52.
17. Wilson APR, Grüneberg RN. Ciprofloxacin: 10 Years of Clinical Experience. Oxford, UK: Maxim Medical, 1997.
18. Firsov AA, Vostrov SN, Shevchenko AA et al. Parameters of bacterial killing and regrowth kinetics and antimicrobial effect examined in terms of area under the concentration-time curve relationships: action of ciprofloxacin against Escherichia coli in an in vitro dynamic model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1997; 41: 1281-7.
19. Firsov AA, Gilbert D, Greer K et al. Comparative pharmacodynamics and antimutant potentials of doripenem and imipenem with ciprofloxacin-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa in an in vitro model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2012; 56: 1223-8.
20. Firsov AA, Lubenko IY, Vostrov SN et al. Anti-staphylococcal effect related to the area under the curve/MIC ratio in an in vitro dynamic model: predicted breakpoints versus clinically achievable values for seven fluoroquinolones. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2005; 49: 2642-7.