Amikacin pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics in a novel hollow-fiber Mycobacterium abscessus disease model

Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy

Volumn 60, Issue 3, 2016, Pages 1242-1248

  Ferro, Beatriz E ^a   Srivastava, Shashikant ^b   Deshpande, Devyani ^b   Sherman, Carleton M ^b   Pasipanodya, Jotam G ^b   Van Soolingen, Dick ^a,c   Mouton, Johan W ^a,d   Van Ingen, Jakko ^a   Gumbo, Tawanda ^b,e  

^a RADBOUD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b BAYLOR RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^c NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT   (Netherlands)

^d ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^e UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN   (South Africa)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AMIKACIN; ANTIINFECTIVE AGENT;

ANTIBIOTIC THERAPY; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTICLE; BACTERIAL STRAIN; CONTROLLED STUDY; HOLLOW FIBER; HUMAN; INOCULATION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAXIMUM PLASMA CONCENTRATION; MINIMUM INHIBITORY CONCENTRATION; MONTE CARLO METHOD; MYCOBACTERIOSIS; MYCOBACTERIUM ABSCESSUS; MYCOBACTERIUM ABSCESSUS INFECTION; OTOTOXICITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; ATYPICAL MYCOBACTERIUM; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; DEVICES; DOSE RESPONSE; DRUG EFFECTS; GENETICS; MICROBIAL SENSITIVITY TEST; MUTATION RATE; PATHOGENICITY; PROCEDURES;

AMIKACIN; ANTI-BACTERIAL AGENTS; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; HUMANS; MICROBIAL SENSITIVITY TESTS; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; MONTE CARLO METHOD; MUTATION RATE; NONTUBERCULOUS MYCOBACTERIA;

EID: 84960158784     PISSN: 00664804     EISSN: 10986596     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.02282-15     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Griffith DE, Aksamit T, Brown-Elliott BA, Catanzaro A, Daley C, Gordin F, Holland SM, Horsburgh R, Huitt G, Iademarco MF, Iseman M, Olivier K, Ruoss S, Von Reyn CF, Wallace RJ, Jr, Winthrop K, ATS Mycobacterial Diseases Subcommittee, American Thoracic Society, Infectious Diseases Society of America. 2007. An official ATS/IDSA statement: diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of nontuberculous mycobacterial diseases. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 175:367-416. http://dx.doi.org/10.1164/rccm.200604-571ST.
2. Nessar R, Cambau E, Reyrat JM, Murray A, Gicquel B. 2012. Mycobacterium abscessus: a new antibiotic nightmare. J Antimicrob Chemother 67:810-818. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkr578.
3. Van Ingen J, Ferro BE, Hoefsloot W, Boeree MJ, Van Soolingen D. 2013. Drug treatment of pulmonary nontuberculous mycobacterial disease in HIV-negative patients: the evidence. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther 11:1065-1077. http://dx.doi.org/10.1586/14787210.2013.830413.
4. Jarand J, Levin A, Zhang L, Huitt G, Mitchell JD, Daley CL. 2011. Clinical and microbiologic outcomes in patients receiving treatment for Mycobacterium abscessus pulmonary disease. Clin Infect Dis 52:565-571. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciq237.
5. Ferro BE, Van Ingen J, Wattenberg M, Van Soolingen D, Mouton JW. 2015. Time-kill kinetics of antibiotics active against rapidly growing mycobacteria. J Antimicrob Chemother 70:811-817. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jac/dku431.
6. Bernut A, Le Moigne V, Lesne T, Lutfalla G, Herrmann JL, Kremer L. 2014. In vivo assessment of drug efficacy against Mycobacterium abscessus using the embryonic zebrafish test system. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 58:4054-4063. http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AAC.00142-14.
7. Oh CT, Moon C, Jeong MS, Kwon SH, Jang J. 2013. Drosophila melanogaster model for Mycobacterium abscessus infection. Microbes Infect 15:788-795. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.micinf.2013.06.011.
8. Srivastava S, Gumbo T. 2011. In vitro and in vivo modeling of tuberculosis drugs and its impact on optimization of doses and regimens. Curr Pharm Des 17:2881-2888. http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/138161211797470192.
9. Deshpande D, Srivastava S, Meek C, Leff R, Gumbo T. 2010. Ethambutol optimal clinical dose and susceptibility breakpoint identification by use of a novel pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic model of disseminated intracellular Mycobacterium avium. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 54:1728-1733. http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AAC.01355-09.
10. Gumbo T, Louie A, Deziel MR, Parsons LM, Salfinger M, Drusano GL. 2004. 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 190:1642-1651. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/424849.
11. Pasipanodya JG, Nuermberger E, Romero K, Hanna D, Gumbo T. 2015. Systematic analysis of hollow fiber model of tuberculosis experiments. Clin Infect Dis 61(Suppl 1):S10-S17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cid/civ425.
12. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. 2003. Susceptibility testing of mycobacteria, nocardiae, and other aerobic actinomycetes; approved standard M24-A2. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, Wayne, PA.
13. Schmalstieg AM, Srivastava S, Belkaya S, Deshpande D, Meek C, Leff R, Van Oers NS, Gumbo T. 2012. The antibiotic resistance arrow of time: efflux pump induction is a general first step in the evolution of mycobacterial drug resistance. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 56:4806-4815. http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AAC.05546-11.
14. Dull WL, Alexander MR, Kasik JE. 1979. Bronchial secretion levels of amikacin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 16:767-771. http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AAC.16.6.767.
15. Santré C, Georges H, Jacquier JM, Leroy O, Beuscart C, Buguin D, Beaucaire G. 1995. Amikacin levels in bronchial secretions of 10 pneumonia patients with respiratory support treated once daily versus twice daily. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 39:264-267. http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AAC.39.1.264.
16. Tam VH, Preston SL, Drusano GL. 2003. Optimal sampling schedule design for populations of patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 47:2888-2891. http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AAC.47.9.2888-2891.2003.
17. Modongo C, Pasipanodya JG, Zetola NM, Williams SM, Sirugo G, Gumbo T. 2015. Amikacin concentrations predictive of ototoxicity in multidrug-resistant tuberculosis patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 59:6337-6343. http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AAC.01050-15.
18. Delattre IK, Musuamba FT, Nyberg J, Taccone FS, Laterre PF, Verbeeck RK, Jacobs F, Wallemacq PE. 2010. Population pharmacokinetic modeling and optimal sampling strategy for Bayesian estimation of amikacin exposure in critically ill septic patients. Ther Drug Monit 32:749-756. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/FTD.0b013e3181f675c2.
19. D'Argenio DZ, Schumitzky A, Wang X. 2009. ADAPT 5 user's guide: pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic systems analysis software. Biomedical Simulations Resource, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA. https://bmsr.usc.edu/files/2013/02/ADAPT5-User-Guide.pdf.
20. Akaike H. 1974. A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans Automat Contr 19:716-723. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TAC.1974.1100705.
21. Ludden TM, Beal SL, Sheiner LB. 1994. Comparison of the Akaike information criterion, the Schwarz criterion and the F test as guides to model selection. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 22:431-445. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02353864.
22. Gumbo T, Louie A, Liu W, Brown D, Ambrose PG, Bhavnani SM, Drusano GL. 2007. Isoniazid bactericidal activity and resistance emergence: integrating pharmacodynamics and pharmacogenomics to predict efficacy in different ethnic populations. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 51:2329-2336. http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AAC.00185-07.
23. Gumbo T, Dona CS, Meek C, Leff R. 2009. Pharmacokineticspharmacodynamics of pyrazinamide in a novel in vitro model of tuberculosis for sterilizing effect: a paradigm for faster assessment of new antituberculosis drugs. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 53:3197-3204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AAC.01681-08.
24. Gumbo T, Angulo-Barturen I, Ferrer-Bazaga S. 2015. Pharmacokineticpharmacodynamic and dose-response relationships of antituberculosis drugs: recommendations and standards for industry and academia. J Infect Dis 211(Suppl 3):S96-S106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jiu610.
25. Gumbo T. 2008. Integrating pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and pharmacogenomics to predict outcomes in antibacterial therapy. Curr Opin Drug Discov Devel 11:32-42.
26. Pankey GA, Sabath LD. 2004. Clinical relevance of bacteriostatic versus bactericidal mechanisms of action in the treatment of Gram-positive bacterial infections. Clin Infect Dis 38:864-870. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/381972.
27. Musuka S, Srivastava S, Siyambalapitiyage Dona CW, Meek C, Leff R, Pasipanodya J, Gumbo T. 2013. Thioridazine pharmacokineticpharmacodynamic parameters "wobble" during treatment of tuberculosis: a theoretical basis for shorter-duration curative monotherapy with congeners. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 57:5870-5877. http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AAC.00829-13.
28. Griffith DE. 2011. The talking Mycobacterium abscessus blues. Clin Infect Dis 52:572-574. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciq252.
29. Van Ingen J, Egelund EF, Levin A, Totten SE, Boeree MJ, Mouton JW, Aarnoutse RE, Heifets LB, Peloquin CA, Daley CL. 2012. The pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of pulmonary Mycobacterium avium complex disease treatment. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 186:559-565. http://dx.doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201204-0682OC.
30. Ambrose PG, Bhavnani SM, Rubino CM, Louie A, Gumbo T, Forrest A, Drusano GL. 2007. Pharmacokinetics-pharmacodynamics of antimicrobial therapy: it's not just for mice anymore. Clin Infect Dis 44:79-86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/510079.
31. Craig WA, Redington J, Ebert SC. 1991. Pharmacodynamics of amikacin in vitro and in mouse thigh and lung infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 27(Suppl C):29-40.
32. Gumbo T. 2010. New susceptibility breakpoints for first-line antituberculosis drugs based on antimicrobial pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic science and population pharmacokinetic variability. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 54:1484-1491. http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AAC.01474-09.
33. Gumbo T, Chigutsa E, Pasipanodya J, Visser M, Van Helden PD, Sirgel FA, McIlleron H. 2014. The pyrazinamide susceptibility breakpoint above which combination therapy fails. J Antimicrob Chemother 69:2420-2425. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jac/dku136.
34. Gumbo T, Pasipanodya JG, Wash P, Burger A, McIlleron H. 2014. Redefining multidrug-resistant tuberculosis based on clinical response to combination therapy. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 58:6111-6115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AAC.03549-14.
35. Ocheretina O, Escuyer VE, Mabou MM, Royal-Mardi G, Collins S, Vilbrun SC, Pape JW, Fitzgerald DW. 2014. Correlation between genotypic and phenotypic testing for resistance to rifampin in Mycobacterium tuberculosis clinical isolates in Haiti: investigation of cases with discrepant susceptibility results. PLoS One 9:e90569. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0090569.
36. Gumbo T, Pasipanodya JG, Romero K, Hanna D, Nuermberger E. 2015. Forecasting accuracy of the hollow fiber model of tuberculosis for clinical therapeutic outcomes. Clin Infect Dis 61(Suppl 1):S25-S31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cid/civ427.
37. Rey-Jurado E, Tudo G, Soy D, Gonzalez-Martin J. 2013. Activity and interactions of levofloxacin, linezolid, ethambutol and amikacin in threedrug combinations against Mycobacterium tuberculosis isolates in a human macrophage model. Int J Antimicrob Agents 42:524-530. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2013.07.014.
38. MacGowan AP, Reynolds R, Noel AR, Bowker KE. 2009. Bacterial strain-to-strain variation in pharmacodynamic index magnitude, a hitherto unconsidered factor in establishing antibiotic clinical breakpoints. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 53:5181-5184. http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AAC.00118-09.