Skip to main content
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems
  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About AAC
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • AAC Podcast
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems

User menu

  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
publisher-logosite-logo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About AAC
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • AAC Podcast
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
Experimental Therapeutics

Eravacycline Pharmacokinetics and Challenges in Defining Humanized Exposure In Vivo

Abrar K. Thabit, Marguerite L. Monogue, David P. Nicolau
Abrar K. Thabit
aCenter for Anti-Infective Research and Development, Hartford Hospital, Hartford, Connecticut, USA
bFaculty of Pharmacy, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Abrar K. Thabit
Marguerite L. Monogue
aCenter for Anti-Infective Research and Development, Hartford Hospital, Hartford, Connecticut, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
David P. Nicolau
aCenter for Anti-Infective Research and Development, Hartford Hospital, Hartford, Connecticut, USA
cDivision of Infectious Diseases, Hartford Hospital, Hartford, Connecticut, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.00240-16
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

We assessed the pharmacokinetic profile of eravacycline, a novel antibiotic of the tetracycline class, and determined the dose in an immunocompetent murine thigh infection model that would provide free-drug exposure similar to that observed in humans after the administration of 1 mg/kg intravenously (i.v.) every 12 h (q12h). Eravacycline demonstrated a nonlinear protein-binding profile. The 2.5-mg/kg i.v. q12h dose in mice resulted in an area under the concentration-time curve for the free, unbound fraction of the drug of 1.64 mg · h/liter, which closely resembles the human exposure level.

TEXT

The understanding of the pharmacokinetic (PK) profile and its correlation to drug efficacy, as defined by the pharmacodynamic (PD) profile, is considered a cornerstone of antimicrobial drug development (1, 2). The desired PK profile of an agent can be used to construct a dosing regimen(s) that provides humanized exposures to allow the assessment of the compound's efficacy across a wide range of genotypic or phenotypic resistance profiles prior to clinical studies. The assessment of the free, non-protein-bound portion of the drug in plasma is necessary when estimating the appropriate dose (i.e., exposure) of the antimicrobial agent since it is the free, biologically active drug that is responsible for the antibacterial effect (3). While the extent of protein binding remains constant across the dose range for some antimicrobial classes, the magnitude of protein binding of tetracyclines follows a pattern (4). In other words, protein binding of tigecycline increases with increased total drug concentrations (5, 6).

Eravacycline, a novel member of the tetracycline class, has a broad spectrum of activity against Gram-negative and Gram-positive organisms (7). This study aimed to develop a human-simulated dose in mice based on data from studies with humans. A phase 1 study of eravacycline in healthy human volunteers has shown that a 1-mg/kg intravenous (i.v.) dose every 12 h (q12h) achieves an area under the concentration-time curve for the free, unbound fraction of the drug from 0 to 24 h (fAUC0–24) of 1.54 ± 0.28 mg · h/liter (8). This study also aimed to assess the protein-binding profile of eravacycline in mice and to define a dose in this species that would provide human exposure (i.e., fAUC0–24) for use in the immunocompetent murine thigh infection model.

PK studies.Eravacycline (lot B110342; Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Watertown, MA) provided in 52.5-mg current good manufacturing practice vials was used throughout these experiments. Immunocompetent, specific-pathogen-free ICR (CD-1) female mice (Envigo RMS, Inc., Indianapolis, IN) were used in these studies. The protocol was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee at Hartford Hospital, Hartford, CT. Mice were infected in the thighs with Klebsiella pneumoniae 404 (eravacycline MIC of 0.25 μg/ml, SHV genotype). Two hours postinfection, eravacycline was administered via the i.v. route at single doses of 2.5, 5, 6, 7.5, and 10 mg/kg. Terminal blood samples were collected at eight postdose time points (0.083, 0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 8, and 12 h). Plasma was separated by centrifugation for 15 min at 4°C at a relative centrifugal force (RCF) of 3,000.

To determine protein binding, an aliquot (approximately 0.9 ml) of plasma was transferred to Centrifree Ultrafiltration devices (Millipore Corporation, Billerica, MA) with a 30,000 molecular weight cutoff and centrifuged for 45 min at 4°C at an RCF of 2,000.

Nonspecific binding to the ultrafiltration membrane was measured in triplicate at multiple eravacycline concentrations. All plasma and aqueous samples were stored at −80°C until shipped for analysis.

Eravacycline concentration determination.Plasma drug concentrations were determined by Frontage Laboratories, Inc. (Exton, PA), by a verified liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrophotometry method. The mean concentration per time point was calculated for each dose studied. Since the fAUC/MIC ratio is the PK/PD parameter that best correlates with the efficacy of tetracyclines (3), both the AUC0–12 and fAUC0–12 of eravacycline were calculated from total and free drug concentrations, respectively, by using the linear trapezoidal rule.

Results.The protein binding of eravacycline in these studies ranged from 12.5 to 97.3%, with a mean ± standard deviation of 71.4% ± 17.1%, and showed a nonlinear, concentration-dependent relationship to the total drug concentration (Fig. 1). Namely, the protein binding of eravacycline increased nonlinearly as the total drug concentration increased. A nonspecific-binding study showed negligible binding of eravacycline to the membrane of the ultrafiltration device. Therefore, no correction for nonspecific binding was undertaken.

FIG 1
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 1

Total plasma eravacycline concentrations and percentages of the free drug after i.v. administration of eravacycline in the immunocompetent murine thigh infection model.

The total and free eravacycline concentrations in plasma are graphically displayed in Fig. 2A to E. The AUC0–12 and fAUC0–12 of eravacycline achieved by 2.5- to 10-mg/kg i.v. doses are shown in Table 1. None of the doses studied, if administered q24h, yielded a fAUC0–24 equivalent to the human target exposure. However, if 2.5 mg/kg, which has a fAUC0–12 of 0.82 mg · h/liter, was administered q12h, it yielded a predicted fAUC0–24 of 1.64 mg · h/liter, which closely approximates the human exposure from a 1-mg/kg q12h i.v. dose.

FIG 2
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 2

Total and free eravacycline concentrations in plasma in the immunocompetent murine thigh infection model following the administration of a single i.v. eravacycline dose of 2.5 mg/kg (A), 5 mg/kg (B), 6 mg/kg (C), 7.5 mg/kg (D), or 10 mg/kg (E).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 1

AUC0–12 and fAUC0–12 of eravacycline in the immunocompetent murine thigh infection model

Discussion.The fixed protein-binding profile of most antimicrobial agents, such as β-lactams and fluoroquinolones, makes prediction of the free drug concentration profile easy by applying the percentage of the free fraction of the drug to the measured total concentration in serum and thus makes the simulation of the human dose in a mouse a simple process. Conversely, the tetracycline class has been known for having a variable protein-binding profile (4).

This pattern is more prominent with the newer members of the class, such as tigecycline and eravacycline (9, 10). In this profile, the total plasma drug concentration is inversely proportional to the percentage of the free fraction of the drug (i.e., a nonlinear relationship). Under such conditions, a fixed protein-binding value does not exist; therefore, direct measurement of the free unbound drug for a given dose is a necessity when correlating the fAUC/MIC ratio with the antibacterial effects. The pattern seen in the current in vivo studies and in a previous study using the microdialysis method for protein binding determination largely resembles the profile seen in humans (11).This current series of studies used a novel in vivo approach in estimating the protein-binding profile of eravacycline in mice similar to that commonly done in humans to eliminate bias associated with in vitro studies to assess protein binding. This profile was used to develop a humanized regimen to be used in murine efficacy studies using a target fAUC0–24 of 1.54 ± 0.28 mg · h/liter based on the exposures measured in a phase 1 study of humans given a 1-mg/kg i.v. dose q12h (8).

We conclude that an eravacycline regimen of 2.5 mg/kg i.v. q12h in mice yields a fAUC0–24 that approximates the exposure seen in healthy volunteers given a 1-mg/kg i.v. dose q12h, after accounting for the nonlinear protein-binding profile. The results of this study advance our knowledge of the protein binding of tetracyclines and provide insight into mouse-based studies of eravacycline efficacy.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This project was funded in part by Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and in part with federal funds from the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, under contract HHSO100201200002C.

D.P.N. is a member of the scientific board of Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and has received research support from Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The other authors have nothing to disclose.

We thank Jared Crandon, Lucinda Lamb, Jennifer Tabor-Rennie, Sara Robinson, Debora Santini, Christina Sutherland, Kimelyn Greenwood, Yukihiro Hamada, Islam Ghazi, Wonhee So, and Jaime Verastegui from the Center for Anti-Infective Research and Development, Hartford, CT, for their assistance with the conduct of this study and Jack Wang and Abdul Mutlib from Frontage Laboratories, Inc., Exton, PA, for analysis of eravacycline concentrations.

FOOTNOTES

    • Received 29 January 2016.
    • Returned for modification 18 February 2016.
    • Accepted 25 March 2016.
    • Accepted manuscript posted online 27 June 2016.
  • Copyright © 2016, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Craig WA
    . 1998. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic parameters: rationale for antibacterial dosing of mice and men. Clin Infect Dis 26:1–10. doi:10.1086/516284.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  2. 2.↵
    1. Levison ME,
    2. Levison JH
    . 2009. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of antibacterial agents. Infect Dis Clin North Am 23:791–815. doi:10.1016/j.idc.2009.06.008.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  3. 3.↵
    1. Ambrose PG,
    2. Bhavnani SM,
    3. Rubino CM,
    4. Louie A,
    5. Gumbo T,
    6. Forrest A,
    7. Drusano GL
    . 2007. Pharmacokinetics-pharmacodynamics of antimicrobial therapy: it's not just for mice anymore. Clin Infect Dis 44:79–86. doi:10.1086/510079.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  4. 4.↵
    1. Agwuh KN,
    2. MacGowan A
    . 2006. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the tetracyclines including glycylcyclines. J Antimicrob Chemother 58:256–265. doi:10.1093/jac/dkl224.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  5. 5.↵
    1. Bulik CC,
    2. Wiskirchen DE,
    3. Shepard A,
    4. Sutherland CA,
    5. Kuti JL,
    6. Nicolau DP
    . 2010. Tissue penetration and pharmacokinetics of tigecycline in diabetic patients with chronic wound infections described by using in vivo microdialysis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 54:5209–5213. doi:10.1128/AAC.01051-10.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. Crandon JL,
    2. Banevicius MA,
    3. Nicolau DP
    . 2009. Pharmacodynamics of tigecycline against phenotypically diverse Staphylococcus aureus isolates in a murine thigh model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 53:1165–1169. doi:10.1128/AAC.00647-08.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    1. Sutcliffe JA,
    2. O'Brien W,
    3. Fyfe C,
    4. Grossman TH
    . 2013. Antibacterial activity of eravacycline (TP-434), a novel fluorocycline, against hospital and community pathogens. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 57:5548–5558. doi:10.1128/AAC.01288-13.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Connors KP,
    2. Housman ST,
    3. Pope JS,
    4. Russomanno J,
    5. Salerno E,
    6. Shore E,
    7. Redican S,
    8. Nicolau DP
    . 2014. Phase I, open-label, safety and pharmacokinetic study to assess bronchopulmonary disposition of intravenous eravacycline in healthy men and women. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 58:2113–2118. doi:10.1128/AAC.02036-13.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    1. Muralidharan G,
    2. Micalizzi M,
    3. Speth J,
    4. Raible D,
    5. Troy S
    . 2005. Pharmacokinetics of tigecycline after single and multiple doses in healthy subjects. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 49:220–229. doi:10.1128/AAC.49.1.220-229.2005.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. 10.↵
    1. Chaturvedi P,
    2. Esposito C,
    3. Koroma J,
    4. Cannon EP,
    5. Tanaka S
    . 2003. In vitro assessment of plasma protein binding and metabolic stability of PTK 0796, abstr 2675, poster F-760. 43rd Intersci Conf Antimicrob Agents Chemother. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, DC.
  11. 11.↵
    1. Singh RS,
    2. Falcao NM,
    3. Sutcliffe J,
    4. Derendorf H
    . 2013. Plasma protein binding of eravacycline in mouse, rat, rabbit, cynomolgus monkey, African green monkey and human using microdialysis, abstr A-015. 53rd Intersci Conf Antimicrob Agents Chemother, Denver, CO.
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Eravacycline Pharmacokinetics and Challenges in Defining Humanized Exposure In Vivo
Abrar K. Thabit, Marguerite L. Monogue, David P. Nicolau
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Jul 2016, 60 (8) 5072-5075; DOI: 10.1128/AAC.00240-16

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Print

Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email

Thank you for sharing this Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Eravacycline Pharmacokinetics and Challenges in Defining Humanized Exposure In Vivo
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Eravacycline Pharmacokinetics and Challenges in Defining Humanized Exposure In Vivo
Abrar K. Thabit, Marguerite L. Monogue, David P. Nicolau
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Jul 2016, 60 (8) 5072-5075; DOI: 10.1128/AAC.00240-16
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • TEXT
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

  • About AAC
  • Editor in Chief
  • Editorial Board
  • Policies
  • For Reviewers
  • For the Media
  • For Librarians
  • For Advertisers
  • Alerts
  • AAC Podcast
  • RSS
  • FAQ
  • Permissions
  • Journal Announcements

Authors

  • ASM Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Article Types
  • Ethics
  • Contact Us

Follow #AACJournal

@ASMicrobiology

       

ASM Journals

ASM journals are the most prominent publications in the field, delivering up-to-date and authoritative coverage of both basic and clinical microbiology.

About ASM | Contact Us | Press Room

 

ASM is a member of

Scientific Society Publisher Alliance

 

American Society for Microbiology
1752 N St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 737-3600

Copyright © 2021 American Society for Microbiology | Privacy Policy | Website feedback

Print ISSN: 0066-4804; Online ISSN: 1098-6596