This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Firsov, A. A.
Right arrow Articles by Portnoy, Y. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Firsov, A. A.
Right arrow Articles by Portnoy, Y. A.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, November 1998, p. 2848-2852, Vol. 42, No. 11
0066-4804/98/$04.00+0
Copyright © 1998, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.

MIC-Based Interspecies Prediction of the Antimicrobial Effects of Ciprofloxacin on Bacteria of Different Susceptibilities in an In Vitro Dynamic Model

Alexander A. Firsov,1,* Sergey N. Vostrov,1 Alexander A. Shevchenko,1 Stephen H. Zinner,2 Giuseppe Cornaglia,3 and Yury A. Portnoy1

Department of Pharmacokinetics, Centre of Science & Technology LekBioTech, Moscow, Russia1; Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island2; and Institute of Microbiology, University of Verona, Verona, Italy3

Received 30 January 1998/Returned for modification 7 March 1998/Accepted 12 August 1998

Multiple predictors of fluoroquinolone antimicrobial effects (AMEs) are not usually examined simultaneously in most studies. To compare the predictive potentials of the area under the concentration-time curve (AUC)-to-MIC ratio (AUC/MIC), the AUC above MIC (AUCeff), and the time above MIC (Teff), the kinetics of killing and regrowth of four bacterial strains exposed to monoexponentially decreasing concentrations of ciprofloxacin were studied in an in vitro dynamic model. The MICs of ciprofloxacin for clinical isolates of Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli 11775 (I) and 204 (II), and Pseudomonas aeruginosa were 0.6, 0.013, 0.08, and 0.15 µg/ml, respectively. The simulated values of AUC were designed to provide similar 1,000-fold (S. aureus, E. coli I, and P. aeruginosa) or 2,000-fold (E. coli II) ranges of the AUC/MIC. In each case except for the highest AUC/MIC ratio, the observation periods included complete regrowth in the time-kill curve studies. The AME was expressed by its intensity, IE (the area between the control growth and time-kill and regrowth curves up to the point where the viable counts of regrowing bacteria are close to the maximum values observed without drug). For most AUC ranges the IE-AUC curves were fitted by an Emax (maximal effect) model, whereas the effects observed at very high AUCs were greater than those predicted by the model. The AUCs that produced 50% of maximal AME were proportional to the MICs for the strains studied, but maximal AMEs (IEmax) and the extent of sigmoidicity (s) were not related to the MIC. Both Teff and log AUC/MIC correlated well with IE (r2 = 0.98 in both cases) in a species-independent fashion. Unlike Teff or log AUC/MIC, a specific relationship between IE and log AUCeff was inherent in each strain. Although each IE and log AUCeff plot was fitted by linear regression (r2 = 0.97 to 0.99), these plots were not superimposed and therefore are bacterial species dependent. Thus, AUC/MIC and Teff were better predictors of ciprofloxacin's AME than AUCeff. This study suggests that optimal predictors of the AME produced by a given quinolone (intraquinolone predictors) may be established by examining its AMEs against bacteria of different susceptibilities. Teff was shown previously also to be the best interquinolone predictor, but unlike AUC/MIC, it cannot be used to compare different quinolones. AUC/MIC might be the best predictor of the AME in comparisons of different quinolones.


* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Department of Pharmacokinetics, Centre of Science & Technology LekBioTech, 8 Nauchny proezd, Moscow, 117246 Russia. Phone: 7(095)332-34-35. Fax: 7(095)331-01-01. E-mail: Biotec{at}glas.apc.org.


Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, November 1998, p. 2848-2852, Vol. 42, No. 11
0066-4804/98/$04.00+0
Copyright © 1998, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.



This article has been cited by other articles:

  • Wiuff, C., Zappala, R. M., Regoes, R. R., Garner, K. N., Baquero, F., Levin, B. R. (2005). Phenotypic Tolerance: Antibiotic Enrichment of Noninherited Resistance in Bacterial Populations. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 49: 1483-1494 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Regoes, R. R., Wiuff, C., Zappala, R. M., Garner, K. N., Baquero, F., Levin, B. R. (2004). Pharmacodynamic Functions: a Multiparameter Approach to the Design of Antibiotic Treatment Regimens. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 48: 3670-3676 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Schentag, J. J, Meagher, A. K, Forrest, A. (2003). Fluoroquinolone AUIC Break Points and the Link to Bacterial Killing Rates: Part 1: In Vitro and Animal Models. The Annals of Pharmacotherapy 37: 1287-1298 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • MacKenzie, F. M., Milne, K. E., Gould, I. M. (2002). Calculation of composite recovery time: a new pharmacodynamic parameter. J Antimicrob Chemother 50: 281-284 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Wright, D. H., Brown, G. H., Peterson, M. L., Rotschafer, J. C. (2000). Application of fluoroquinolone pharmacodynamics. J Antimicrob Chemother 46: 669-683 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Delacher, S., Derendorf, H., Hollenstein, U., Brunner, M., Joukhadar, C., Hofmann, S., Georgopoulos, A., Eichler, H. G., Muller, M. (2000). A combined in vivo pharmacokinetic-in vitro pharmacodynamic approach to simulate target site pharmacodynamics of antibiotics in humans. J Antimicrob Chemother 46: 733-739 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • MacGowan, A., Rogers, C., Bowker, K. (2000). The use of in vitro pharmacodynamic models of infection to optimize fluoroquinolone dosing regimens. J Antimicrob Chemother 46: 163-170 [Full Text]