Recent updates on the role of pharmacokinetics-pharmacodynamics in antimicrobial susceptibility testing as applied to clinical practice

Clinical Infectious Diseases

Volumn 61, Issue 9, 2015, Pages 1446-1452

  Labreche, Matthew J ^a   Graber, Christopher J ^b   Nguyen, Hien M ^a  

^a KAISER PERMANENTE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

breakpoints; pharmacodynamics; pharmacokinetics; susceptibility testing

Indexed keywords

ANTIBIOTIC AGENT; CEFAZOLIN; CEFEPIME; CEPHALOSPORIN DERIVATIVE; EXTENDED SPECTRUM BETA LACTAMASE; PENICILLIN DERIVATIVE; VANCOMYCIN; ANTIINFECTIVE AGENT;

ANTIBIOTIC SENSITIVITY; CLINICAL PRACTICE; DOSE RESPONSE; ENTEROBACTERIACEAE INFECTION; HISTORY OF MEDICINE; HUMAN; METHICILLIN RESISTANT STAPHYLOCOCCUS AUREUS INFECTION; NONHUMAN; PENICILLIN RESISTANT STREPTOCOCCUS PNEUMONIAE INFECTION; PNEUMOCOCCAL INFECTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REVIEW; DRUG APPROVAL; DRUG DEVELOPMENT; DRUG EFFECTS; ENTEROBACTERIACEAE; ENTEROBACTERIACEAE INFECTIONS; METHICILLIN RESISTANT STAPHYLOCOCCUS AUREUS; MICROBIAL SENSITIVITY TEST; MICROBIOLOGY; PNEUMOCOCCAL INFECTIONS; PRECLINICAL STUDY; PROCEDURES; STAPHYLOCOCCAL INFECTIONS; STREPTOCOCCUS PNEUMONIAE;

ANTI-BACTERIAL AGENTS; CEPHALOSPORINS; DRUG APPROVAL; DRUG DISCOVERY; DRUG EVALUATION, PRECLINICAL; ENTEROBACTERIACEAE; ENTEROBACTERIACEAE INFECTIONS; HUMANS; METHICILLIN-RESISTANT STAPHYLOCOCCUS AUREUS; MICROBIAL SENSITIVITY TESTS; PENICILLINS; PNEUMOCOCCAL INFECTIONS; STAPHYLOCOCCAL INFECTIONS; STREPTOCOCCUS PNEUMONIAE; VANCOMYCIN;

EID: 84946751229     PISSN: 10584838     EISSN: 15376591     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/cid/civ498     Document Type: Review

References (49)

1. Drusano GL. Role of pharmacokinetics in the outcome of infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1988; 32:289-97.
2. Mouton JW, Ambrose PG, Canton R, et al. Conserving antibiotics for the future: new ways to use old and new drugs from a pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic perspective. Drug Resist Updat 2011; 14:107-17.
3. Turnidge J, Paterson DL. Setting and revising antibacterial susceptibility breakpoints. Clin Microb Rev 2007; 20:391-408.
4. 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.
5. Martinez MN, Papich MG, Drusano GL. Dosing regimen matters: the importance of early intervention and rapid attainment of the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic target. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2012; 56:2795-805.
6. Bradley JS, Dudley MN, Drusano GL. Predicting efficacy of antiinfectives with pharmacodynamics and Monte Carlo simulation. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2003; 22:982-92.
7. Eagle H, Fleischman R, Musselman AD. Effect of schedule of administration on the therapeutic efficacy of penicillin: importance of the aggregate time penicillin remains at effectively bactericidal levels. Am J Med 1950; 9:280-99.
8. Owens RC Jr, Ambrose PG. Antimicrobial stewardship and the role of pharmacokinetics-pharmacodynamics in the modern antibiotic era. Diagn Microbiol Infect 2007; 57(suppl 3):S77-83.
9. Nightingale CH. Antimicrobial pharmacodynamics in theory and clinical practice. New York: Informa Healthcare, 2007.
10. Forrest A, Nix DE, Ballow CH, Goss TF, Birmingham M, Schentag J. Pharmacodynamics of intravenous ciprofloxacin in seriously ill patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1993; 37:1073-81.
11. Drusano G, Preston S, Hardalo C, et al. Use of preclinical data for selection of a phase II/III dose for evernimicin and identification of a preclinical MIC breakpoint. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2001; 45:13-22.
12. Ambrose PG, Grasela DM. The use of Monte Carlo simulation to examine pharmacodynamic variance of drugs: fluoroquinolone pharmacodynamics against Streptococcus pneumoniae. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2000; 38:151-7.
13. Shlaes DM, Gerding DN, John JF, et al. Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America and Infectious Diseases Society of America Joint Committee on the Prevention of Antimicrobial Resistance: guidelines for the prevention of antimicrobial resistance in hospitals. Clin Infect Dis 1997; 25:584-99.
14. Washington JA II. Discrepancies between in vitro activity of and in vivo response to antimicrobial agents. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 1983; 1:25-31.
15. Doern GV, Brecher SM. The clinical predictive value (or lack thereof ) of the results of in vitro antimicrobial susceptibility tests. J Clin Microbiol 2011; 49(suppl 9):S11-4.
16. Dudley MN, Ambrose PG, Bhavnani SM, et al. Background and rationale for revised clinical and laboratory standards institute interpretive criteria (Breakpoints) for Enterobacteriaceae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa: I. Cephalosporins and Aztreonam. Clin Infect Dis 2013; 56:1301-9.
17. Varghese JM, Roberts JA, Lipman J. Antimicrobial pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic issues in the critically ill with severe sepsis and septic shock. Crit Care Clin 2011; 27:19-34.
18. Roberts JA, Abdul-Aziz MH, Lipman J, et al. Individualised antibiotic dosing for patients who are critically ill: challenges and potential solutions. Lancet Infect Dis 2014; 14:498-509.
19. Kahlmeter G. EUCAST at CLSI. Available at: http://www.eucast.org/fileadmin/src/media/PDFs/EUCAST-files/EUCAST-Presentations/EUCAST-CLSI-Boston-2009.pdf. Accessed 16 January 2015.
20. Turnidge JD; Subcommittee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing of the C, Laboratory Standards I. Cefazolin and enterobacteriaceae: rationale for revised susceptibility testing breakpoints. Clin Infect Dis 2011; 52:917-24.
21. Clinical Laboratory and Standards Institute. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing; Twenty-fifth informational supplement. CLSI document (M100-S25). Wayne, PA, 2015.
22. EUCAST. Breakpoint tables for interpretation of MICs and zone diameters. Version 5.0. Available at: http://www.eucast.org. Accessed January 16 2015.
23. US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). FDA Approved Drug Products. Available at: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/drugsatfda/. Accessed 16 January 2015.
24. Jenkins SG, Jerris RC. Critical assessment of issues applicable to development of antimicrobial susceptibility testing breakpoints. J Clin Microbiol 2011; 49(suppl 9):S5-10.
25. Wolfensberger A, Sax H, Weber R, Zbinden R, Kuster SP, Hombach M. Change of Antibiotic Susceptibility Testing Guidelines from CLSI to EUCAST: Influence on Cumulative Hospital Antibiograms. PloS one 2013; 8:e79130.
26. Hombach M, Bottger EC, Roos M. The critical influence of the intermediate category on interpretation errors in revised EUCAST and CLSI antimicrobial susceptibility testing guidelines. Clin Microbiol Infect 2013; 19:E59-71.
27. Nguyen HM, Shier KL, Graber CJ. Determining a clinical framework for use of cefepime and beta-lactam/beta-lactamase inhibitors in the treatment of infections caused by extended-spectrum-beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae. J Antimicrob Chemother 2014; 69:871-80.
28. Hombach M, Mouttet B, Bloemberg GV. Consequences of revised CLSI and EUCAST guidelines for antibiotic susceptibility patterns of ESBLand AmpC beta-lactamase-producing clinical Enterobacteriaceae isolates. J Antimicrob Chemother 2013; 68:2092-8
29. Rybak MJ, Albrecht LM, Boike SC, Chandrasekar PH. Nephrotoxicity of vancomycin, alone and with an aminoglycoside. J Antimicrob Chemother 1990; 25:679-87.
30. Moise-Broder PA, Forrest A, Birmingham MC, Schentag JJ. Pharmacodynamics of vancomycin and other antimicrobials in patients with Staphylococcus aureus lower respiratory tract infections. Clin Pharmacokinet 2004; 43:925-42.
31. Tenover FC, Moellering Jr. R.C. The rationale for revising the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute vancomycin minimal inhibitory concentration interpretive criteria for Staphylococcus aureus. Clin Infect Dis 2007; 44:1208-15.
32. van Hal SJ, Fowler Jr. V.G. Is it time to replace vancomycin in the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections? Clin Infect Dis 2013; 56:1779-88.
33. Patel N, Pai MP, Rodvold KA, Lomaestro B, Drusano GL, Lodise TP. Vancomycin: we can?t get there from here. Clin Infect Dis 2011; 52:969-74.
34. Rybak MJ, Lomaestro BM, Rotscahfer JC, et al. Vancomycin therapeutic guidelines: a summary of consensus recommendations from the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, and the Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists. Clin Infect Dis 2009; 49:325-7.
35. Weinstein MP, Klugman KP, Jones RN. Rationale for revised penicillin susceptibility breakpoints versus Streptococcus pneumoniae: coping with antimicrobial susceptibility in an era of resistance. Clin Infect Dis 2009; 48:1596-600.
36. Andes D, Craig W. In vivo activities of amoxicillin and amoxicillinclavulanate against Streptococcus pneumoniae: application to breakpoint determinations. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1998; 42:2375-9.
37. Nguyen HM, Labreche MJ, Graber CJ. Making sense of cephalosporin and amoxicillin/clavulanate susceptibility testing for uropathogens. Clin Infect Dis 2014; 59:1349-50.
38. Clinical Laboratory and Standards Institute. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing; Twenty-Dhird informational supplement. CLSI document (M100-S23). Wayne, PA, 2013.
39. Nguyen HM, Graber CJ. Cephalothin susceptibility testing as class representative for oral cephalosporins: is it time to move on? Diagn Microb Infect 2013; 76:483-5. Wayne, PA, 2013.
40. Burd EM, Kehl KS. A critical appraisal of the role of the clinical microbiology laboratory in the diagnosis of urinary tract infections. J Clin Microbiol 2011; 49(suppl 9):S34-8.
41. Schuetz AN, Brasso WB, Crandon JL, et al. Cefazolin as a class representative for oral cephalosporins and uncomplicated urinary tract infections caused by indicated Enterobacteriaceae. Diagn Microb Infect 2013; 77:381-2.
42. Livermore DM, Andrews JM, Hawkey PM, et al. Are susceptibility tests enough, or should laboratories still seek ESBLs and carbapenemases directly? J Antimicrob Chemother 2012; 67:1569-77.
43. Andes D, Craig WA. Treatment of infections with ESBL-producing organisms: pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic considerations. Clin Microbiol Infect 2005; 11(suppl 6):10-7.
44. Ramphal R. Developing Strategies to Minimize the Impact of Extended-Spectrum β-Lactamases: Focus on Cefepime. Clin Infect Dis 2006; 42(suppl 4):S151-2.
45. Lee NY, Lee CC, Huang WH, Tsui KC, Hsueh PR, Ko WC. Cefepime therapy for monomicrobial bacteremia caused by cefepime-susceptible extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae: MIC matters. Clin Infect Dis 2013; 56:488-95.
46. Infectious Diseases Society of A. White paper: recommendations on the conduct of superiority and organism-specific clinical trials of antibacterial agents for the treatment of infections caused by drug-resistant bacterial pathogens. Clin Infect Dis 2012; 55:1031-46.
47. Ambrose PG, Hammel JP, Bhavnani SM, Rubino CM, Ellis-Grosse EJ, Drusano GL. Frequentist and Bayesian pharmacometric-based approaches to facilitate critically needed new antibiotic development: overcoming lies, damn lies, and statistics. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2012; 56:1466-70.
48. Ambrose PG. The Challenge: Antibiotics and unmet medical need. Available at: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en-GB/document-library/Presentation/2013/09/WC500150491.pdf. Accessed 16 January 2015.
49. Ambrose PG. Rational susceptibility test interpretative criteria: Perspectives from the USCAST. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/Drugs/Anti-Infective DrugsAdvisoryCommittee/UCM374226.pdf. Accessed 16 January 2015.