Previous Article | Next Article 
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, October 2001, p. 2936-2938, Vol. 45, No. 10
0066-4804/01/$04.00+0 DOI: 10.1128/AAC.45.10.2936-2938.2001
Copyright © 2001, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
Comparison of Once-Daily versus Twice-Daily
Administration of Cefdinir against Typical Bacterial Respiratory
Tract Pathogens
Gigi H.
Ross,1,2
Laurie Baeker
Hovde,1
Khalid H.
Ibrahim,1,2
Yasir H.
Ibrahim,1,2 and
John C.
Rotschafer1,2,*
College of Pharmacy, University of Minnesota,
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455,1 and
Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Regions Hospital, St.
Paul, Minnesota 551012
Received 17 April 2000/Returned for modification 11 October
2000/Accepted 17 July 2001
 |
ABSTRACT |
In an in vitro pharmacodynamic model, a twice-daily cefdinir dosing
regimen was more effective than a once-daily regimen against common
bacterial respiratory pathogens in producing 3-log10
killing and preventing the occurrence of regrowth at 24 h. Twice-daily administration is likely the more appropriate cefdinir dosing strategy
for the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia.
 |
TEXT |
Cefdinir (Omnicef) is an oral
extended-spectrum cephalosporin approved by the Food and Drug
Administration for the treatment of several respiratory tract
infections, including acute maxillary sinusitis, acute bacterial otitis
media, acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis,
pharyngitis-tonsillitis, and community-acquired pneumonia. The drug has
been shown to be effective against common respiratory pathogens
including penicillin-susceptible strains of Streptococcus
pneumoniae, Streptococcus pyogenes, and
-lactamase-producing Haemophilus influenzae and
Moraxella catarrhalis (Warner-Lambert Co. Omnicef (cefdinir)
product information, August 1998). The recommended dose of
cefdinir varies from 300 mg twice daily (BID) to 600 mg once daily
(QD), depending on the type of infection, to be given for 10 days.
Clinical trials with cefdinir have demonstrated that QD dosing is as
effective as BID dosing against respiratory tract infections, excluding
community-acquired pneumonia, in which QD dosing has not been studied
(Warner-Lambert Co. Omnicef® (cefdinir) product information, August
1998). The purpose of this investigation was to determine whether a
difference in the rate and extent of bacterial killing exists between
QD and BID administration of cefdinir using an in vitro pharmacodynamic
model. Such data would advocate appropriate dosing for obtaining
maximal antibacterial activity with this cephalosporin in the treatment
of community-acquired pneumonia and other respiratory tract infections.
A series of experiments were performed in a previously described in
vitro pharmacodynamic model (8) using four clinical respiratory isolates
two strains of S. pneumoniae, a
penicillin-susceptible strain (SP 30; penicillin MIC <0.06 mg/liter)
and a non-penicillin-susceptible strain (S-53; penicillin MIC, 0.25 mg/liter), and two strains of H. influenzae, a
-lactamase-producing strain (HF 1746) and a
non-
-lactamase-producing strain (HF 2019). Each experiment was
performed in duplicate for a duration of 24 h. The model consisted of a 290-ml sealed glass chemostat, representing the central
compartment, that was filled with either Todd-Hewitt broth with 0.5%
yeast extract (Difco Laboratories, Detroit, Mich.) for S. pneumoniae or Haemophilus Test Medium (Becton Dickinson,
Cockeysville, Md.) for H. influenzae and fitted with input
and output tubing. Cefdinir was obtained from Parke-Davis (Morris
Plains, N.J.) and prepared in accordance with the manufacturer's
specifications, and stock solutions were stored at
80°C until use.
To simulate QD dosing in humans, an initial bolus of cefdinir was
injected into the chemostat at time zero (achieving a peak
concentration of 3 mg/liter), whereas for BID dosing, boluses were
instilled at time zero and at h 12 (achieving a peak concentration of
1.6 mg/liter). Targeted concentrations were derived from reported data
on human cefdinir pharmacokinetics. Although 60 to 70% of cefdinir is
protein bound, we chose to simulate total serum concentrations in the
model, as the significance of protein-binding values below 85 to 90% and the effect on tissue penetration and clinical impact are unclear (5). By pumping of antibiotic-free medium into the system
at a rate of 1.7 ml/min with a peristaltic pump, an equal volume of
antibiotic-containing medium was displaced. This resulted in the
simulation of a monoexponential pharmacokinetic process that was
adjusted to attain the desired cefdinir half-life of 2 h.
A suspension of each organism was allowed to grow overnight and diluted
1:10 in fresh medium prior to the experiment. The diluted suspension
was reincubated for approximately 1 h to allow organisms to attain
exponential growth. Upon comparison with a 0.5 McFarland equivalence
turbidity standard (Remel, Lenexa, Kans.), an appropriate portion of
the medium volume was added to the chemostat, producing an initial
bacterial inoculum of 106 CFU/ml. The in vitro
pharmacodynamic model was placed in a monitored 37°C water bath to
maintain growth. Constant mixing of the microorganisms and antibiotic
was ensured by placing a magnetic stirring bar in the bottom of each
chamber. One-milliliter samples were taken at selected time intervals
(baseline and 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 12, 15, 18, 21, and 24 h) and plated
onto either tryptic soy agar with 5% sheep blood (Remel) for S. pneumoniae or chocolate agar (Remel) for H. influenzae.
Antibiotic carryover was prevented by saline dilution. Following
incubation for 24 h at 37°C in 5 to 10% CO2, agar
plates containing 30 to 300 bacterial colonies were counted to
construct the time-kill curves. The lower limit of bacterial detection
in our laboratory has been determined to be 3 × 102
CFU/ml.
The MIC of cefdinir for each organism was determined by broth
microdilution techniques in accordance with NCCLS guidelines both prior
to and after antibiotic exposure (4). An appropriate medium (Mueller-Hinton broth with 5% lysed horse blood [Becton Dickinson] for S. pneumoniae and Haemophilus Test Medium
for H. influenzae) was used for all susceptibility testing.
MICs were determined in quadruplicate by using an inoculum size of
105 to 106 CFU/ml and incubation without
CO2 for 16 to 20 h at 37°C. Quality control
monitoring was done with Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 29213 and Escherichia coli ATCC 25922.
Evaluation of cefdinir concentrations was conducted by obtaining 1-ml
samples at three separate time points over the 24-h period (1, 5, and
13 h). Cefdinir concentrations were verified by using an adapted
microbiological assay using Micrococcus luteus ATCC 9341 as
the indicator organism (6). Briefly, blank 0.25-in. disks
were spotted with 20 µl of the standards or samples. We tested each
standard in triplicate and each sample in duplicate by placing the disk
onto previously prepared agar plates containing antibiotic medium no. 5 (Difco Laboratories) and M. luteus. Plates were incubated at
37°C for 24 to 28 h, after which the zone sizes were measured.
Concentrations of 5.0, 2.5, 1.25, 0.625, and 0.3125 mg/liter were used
as standards. The intraday coefficient of variation was <5% for each
standard, while a correlation coefficient of
0.98 was achieved for
all samples.
Quantitative bacterial cell counts were performed by using serial
10-fold dilutions and standard plate-counting techniques. Time-kill
curves were analyzed for the rate and extent of bacterial killing. Time
to 3-log killing (T3K) or time to 99.9% reduction of the initial
inoculum size was determined by linear regression using GraphPad Prism
3.0 (GraphPad Software, Inc., San Diego, Calif.). Extent of bacterial
killing was assessed by the presence or absence of regrowth at 24 h. The percentage of the dosing interval during which cefdinir
concentrations remained above the MIC for the organism (T > MIC),
peak concentration to MIC, and area under the concentration-time curve
to MIC were verified from drug concentration analysis and pre-run MIC
data to evaluate the relationship between the pharmacodynamic parameter
and the antibacterial effect (3). Peak concentration,
minimum concentration, and half-life were calculated by standard
noncompartmental pharmacokinetic equations (7).
The MICs of cefdinir for SP 30, S-53, HF 1746, and HF 2019 were 0.25, 0.5, 0.25, and 0.25 mg/liter, respectively, and are similar to those
reported in the literature. All postexposure MICs were within 1 doubling tube dilution of pre-exposure MICs. No difference was found
between the QD and BID dosing schemes in the initial rate of killing of
either strain of H. influenzae (T3K, 3.2 and 4.4 h for
HF 1746 and 6.5 and 6.2 h for HF 2019) or S. pneumoniae
(T3K, 3.75 and 3.6 h for SP 30 and 4.5 and 4.7 h for S-53) (Fig.
1). Regrowth occurred with all isolates
between 7 and 15 h after drug administration with the QD regimen
and between 5 and 12 h with three of the four isolates after the
first dose under the BID regimen. Regrowth at 24 h, however, was
typically prevented by administering the second daily dose. The
exception was HF 2019. Unexpectedly, regrowth of this
-lactamase-negative strain was apparent by 7 to 12 h and was
sustained throughout the 24-h period despite repeated dosing at 12 h.

View larger version (17K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 1.
Activity of cefdinirs dose of 600 mg QD ( ) and 300 mg
BID ( ) against HF 1746 ( -lactamase-producing H. influenzae) (A), HF 2019 ( -lactamase negative H. influenzae) (B), SP 30 (penicillin-sensitive S. pneumoniae) (C), and S-53 (penicillin-intermediate S. pneumoniae) (D). Growth controls are represented by the symbol
.
|
|
With the data accumulated from in vitro and animal infection models,
the pharmacodynamic index that best correlates with a bacteriologic
cure for
-lactams is T > MIC (1). Against
S. pneumoniae and H. influenzae, a
retrospective/pharmacodynamic analysis of double-tap specimens found
that the times above the MIC required for at least a 90% bacteriologic
cure in acute otitis media and acute maxillary sinusitis were generally
40 to 50% (2). Based on this breakpoint, with cefdinir
MICs of 0.25 to 0.5 mg/liter for H. influenzae and S. pneumoniae, T > MICs of only 22 to 30% are achieved with
the QD regimen while T > MICs of 28 to 45% are achieved with the
BID regimen. As the initial rate of killing was unaffected by
the dose employed and AUCs were virtually identical between
dosing regimens (24-h AUC for the QD regimen, 8.66 µg · h/ml; 24-h AUC for the BID regimen, 9.17 µg · h/ml), the peak concentration to MIC and AUC to MIC
were not indicative of antimicrobial efficacy. T > MIC also did
not correlate with antimicrobial efficacy in our model. For example, a
T > MIC of 28% was effective in producing 3-log killing and
preventing regrowth of S-53 under the BID dosing regimen, whereas
T > MICs of 30 and 45% were ineffective in preventing regrowth
of HF 2019 with the BID regimen or that of HF 1746 with the QD regimen,
respectively. Therefore, based on the presence of regrowth at 24 h
alone, our results do not support the QD administration of cefdinir for
the treatment of infections due to S. pneumoniae and
H. influenzae. With in vitro data, however, we cannot
determine whether 3-log killing is sufficient in lowering the bacterial burden to the point where the human immune system can rid the body of
the infection. Accordingly, we are unsure how regrowth in the model
correlates with efficacy, or lack thereof, in the clinical setting.
Certainly, success with the QD dosing of cefdinir in clinical studies
of upper respiratory tract infections has been achieved. Furthermore,
as only a small number of isolates were included, this study may not
take into account strain-to-strain variability. In conclusion, the BID
cefdinir dosing regimen was effective against three of the four
bacterial strains tested in producing a 99.9% decrease in the initial
bacterial load and preventing the occurrence of regrowth at 24 h
and is therefore likely the more appropriate cefdinir dosing strategy
for the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia.
 |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
This project was supported by a grant from Parke-Davis, a
Warner-Lambert Company.
 |
FOOTNOTES |
*
Corresponding author. Mailing address: Department of
Clinical Pharmacy, Regions Hospital, 640 Jackson St., St. Paul, MN
55101. Phone: (651) 254-3896. Fax: (651) 254-9539. E-mail:
rotsc001{at}tc.umn.edu.
 |
REFERENCES |
| 1.
|
Craig, W. A.
1995.
Interrelationship between pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in determining dosage regimens for broad-spectrum cephalosporins.
Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis.
22:89-96[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 2.
|
Craig, W. A., and D. Andes.
1996.
Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of antibiotics in otitis media.
Pediatr. Infect. Dis. J.
15:255-259[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 3.
|
Hyatt, J. M.,
P. S. McKinnon,
G. S. Zimmer, and J. J. Schentag.
1995.
The importance of pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic surrogate markers to outcome: focus on antibacterial agents.
Clin. Pharmacokinet. Concepts
28:143-160.
|
| 4.
|
National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards.
1997.
Methods for dilution antimicrobial susceptibility test for bacteria that grow aerobically. NCCLS standards document M7-A4, vol. 17, no. 2.
National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards, Wayne, Pa.
|
| 5.
|
Peterson, L. R., and D. N. Gerding.
1980.
Influence of protein binding of antibiotics on serum pharmacokinetics and extravascular penetration: clinically useful concepts.
Rev. Infect. Dis.
2:340-348[Medline].
|
| 6.
|
Peterson, L. R.,
D. N. Gerding,
C. E. Fasching, and C. Costas-Martinez.
1983.
Assay of 27 antimicrobials using a microbiological method.
Minn. Med.
66:321-324[Medline].
|
| 7.
|
Sawchuk, R. J.,
D. E. Zaske,
R. J. Cipolle,
W. A. Wargin, and R. G. Strate.
1977.
Kinetic model for gentamicin dosing with use of individual patient parameters.
Clin. Pharmacol. Ther.
21:362-369[Medline].
|
| 8.
|
Zabinski, R. A.,
K. Vance-Bryan,
A. J. Krinke,
K. J. Walker,
J. A. Moody, and J. C. Rotschafer.
1993.
Elimination of the activity of temafloxacin versus Bacteroides fragilis using an in vitro pharmacodynamic system.
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.
37:1377-1379[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, October 2001, p. 2936-2938, Vol. 45, No. 10
0066-4804/01/$04.00+0 DOI: 10.1128/AAC.45.10.2936-2938.2001
Copyright © 2001, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
This article has been cited by other articles:
-
Louie, A., Brown, D. L., Liu, W., Kulawy, R. W., Deziel, M. R., Drusano, G. L.
(2007). In Vitro Infection Model Characterizing the Effect of Efflux Pump Inhibition on Prevention of Resistance to Levofloxacin and Ciprofloxacin in Streptococcus pneumoniae. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.
51: 3988-4000
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Paradise, J. L.
(2002). A 15-Month-Old Child With Recurrent Otitis Media. JAMA
288: 2589-2598
[Full Text]