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
Pharmacology

Biopharmaceutical Characterization of Nebulized Antimicrobial Agents in Rats: 6. Aminoglycosides

Sandrine Marchand, Matthieu Boisson, Shachi Mehta, Christophe Adier, Olivier Mimoz, Nicolas Grégoire, William Couet
Sandrine Marchand
aInserm U1070, Pôle Biologie Santé, Poitiers, France
bUniversité de Poitiers, UFR Médecine-Pharmacie, Poitiers, France
cCHU Poitiers, Laboratoire de Toxicologie-Pharmacocinétique, Poitiers, France
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Sandrine Marchand
Matthieu Boisson
aInserm U1070, Pôle Biologie Santé, Poitiers, France
bUniversité de Poitiers, UFR Médecine-Pharmacie, Poitiers, France
dCHU Poitiers, Département d'Anesthésie-Réanimation, Poitiers, France
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Shachi Mehta
bUniversité de Poitiers, UFR Médecine-Pharmacie, Poitiers, France
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Christophe Adier
cCHU Poitiers, Laboratoire de Toxicologie-Pharmacocinétique, Poitiers, France
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Olivier Mimoz
aInserm U1070, Pôle Biologie Santé, Poitiers, France
bUniversité de Poitiers, UFR Médecine-Pharmacie, Poitiers, France
eCHU Poitiers, Service des Urgences–Centre 15, Poitiers, France
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nicolas Grégoire
aInserm U1070, Pôle Biologie Santé, Poitiers, France
bUniversité de Poitiers, UFR Médecine-Pharmacie, Poitiers, France
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
William Couet
aInserm U1070, Pôle Biologie Santé, Poitiers, France
bUniversité de Poitiers, UFR Médecine-Pharmacie, Poitiers, France
cCHU Poitiers, Laboratoire de Toxicologie-Pharmacocinétique, Poitiers, France
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.01261-18
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

Amikacin and gentamicin pharmacokinetic behaviors after nebulization were determined by comparing plasma and pulmonary epithelial lining fluid (ELF) concentrations in rats after intratracheal and intravenous administrations. ELF areas under concentration-time curve were 874 and 162 times higher after nebulization than after intravenous administration for amikacin and gentamicin, respectively. Even if both molecules appear to be good candidates for nebulization, these results demonstrate a much higher targeting advantage of nebulization for amikacin than for gentamicin.

TEXT

Respiratory infections in mechanically ventilated patients are frequent (1). Although parenteral administration of aminoglycosides constitutes the standard route of administration, nebulization (NEB) is being used more and more frequently, and tobramycin (TOB) and amikacin (AMK) are the most commonly prescribed agents for NEB (1). Compared with fluoroquinolones, which present high membrane permeability (2), the difficulty of aminoglycosides to permeate membranes may allow for high intrapulmonary concentrations to be obtained by patients after NEB. This was observed in rats, with a ratio of TOB area under the epithelial lining fluid (ELF) concentration-time curve (AUCELF) over plasma AUC of 222 after NEB (3). The aim of this new study was to extend this finding to two other aminoglycoside antibiotics, AMK and gentamicin (GEN), using the same standardized protocol (3).

GEN and AMK for parenteral administration were used for all experiments (GEN sulfate Panpharma solution 80 mg · ml−1, expressed in base, and AMK Mylan 500 mg powder). Animal experiments were conducted in compliance with European Community directive 2010/63/EU after approval by the local ethics committee (COMETHEA) and were registered by the French Ministry of Higher Education and Research under authorization number 2015070211159865. Male Sprague Dawley rats (n = 49 for GEN and 40 for AMK; mean weight, 300 g) from Janvier Laboratories (Le Genest-St-Isle, France) were used for the experiments. As previously described, they were divided in two groups corresponding to the route of administration for each molecule (intravenous [i.v.] or NEB) (3, 4). GEN and AMK were administered under anesthesia by i.v. bolus in the tail vein (1 ml) or by intratracheal NEB (100 μl) with a microsprayer 1A-1B (Penn-Century, Wyndmoor, PA) at doses commonly used in clinical practice, after correction for body weight, and equal to 8 and 30 mg · kg−1, respectively. Bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) fluid and blood sampling were performed until 4 h after administration (4 or 5 sampling times [0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4 h] and 4 to 7 rats per sampling time). Assays were conducted by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). The mass spectrometer was operated in the positive mode, and ions were analyzed by multiple-reaction monitoring. An Alliance Waters 2695 system coupled with a Quattro micro API tandem mass spectrometer (Waters SAS, Saint Quentin en Yvelines, France) was used to perform GEN analysis in plasma and BAL fluid, using a previously described method with limited modifications (5). Determination of AMK concentrations in plasma and BAL fluid was performed using a method previously developed by KCAS Bioanalytical and Biomarker Services (Shawnee, Kansas). The system was composed of a Shimadzu LC module (Nexera XR; Shimadzu France, Marne la Vallée, France) coupled with an API 3000 mass spectrometer (Sciex; Life Sciences, Les Ulis, France). For both molecules, the same concentrations were used for BAL fluid and plasma standard curves (0.005 to 2 μg · ml−1); BAL fluid samples were injected directly, whereas plasma samples were deproteinized with trichloroacetic acid 10%. Intra- and interday variabilities were evaluated at four levels of concentration (limit of quantification [LOQ], 2 or 3 times the LOQ, an intermediate concentration in the standard curve, and 75% of the highest standard curve concentration). Precision and accuracy of <15% was tolerated, with the exception of 20% at the LOQ. Urea concentrations in plasma and BAL fluid were measured as previously described (4, 6). ELF antibiotic concentrations were calculated from the measured BAL fluid concentration after correction for dilution by the urea method (4, 6). For each compound, plasma and ELF concentrations versus time were analyzed simultaneously after i.v. and NEB administration with the nonlinear mixed-effect method using S-ADAPT software (7). Plasma protein binding of AMK and GEN was assumed to be negligible. The final structural pharmacokinetic model was the same for both molecules, i.e., a central compartment from which drugs were eliminated and two ELF compartments connected by two distribution clearances, one between plasma and the first ELF compartment and the other between the two ELF compartments. In accordance with previous observations with the Penn-Century microsprayer, complete bioavailability after NEB was hypothesized and was fixed to 100% (3, 8). Areas under plasma and ELF concentration-time curves from time zero to infinity (AUCplasma, AUCELF) and elimination half-lives were estimated from the model (Berkeley Madonna, version 8.3.18, University of California). To compare pulmonary drug exposure after NEB versus after i.v. administration, the targeting advantage of NEB was estimated by the ratio of AUCELF after NEB to AUCELF after i.v. corrected for doses (9).

After i.v. bolus, typical plasma elimination half-lives of AMK and GEN were 0.40 and 0.49 h, respectively. Half-lives in ELF were at least 3 times longer than in plasma (2.1 and 1.6 h, respectively), suggesting that elimination from ELF is distribution-rate limited for both molecules (Fig. 1). Because complete bioavailability after NEB was hypothesized, AMK and GEN plasma concentrations were virtually similar regardless of the route of administration. Data were also in accordance with passive diffusion between plasma and ELF, since the ratios of ELF to plasma AUCs after i.v. administration were estimated to be 1.0 for both molecules. After NEB, the maximal plasma concentration (0.5 h) was observed at the first time of sampling (Fig. 1), and the ratio of mean ELF to plasma concentration was ∼5 times higher for AMK than for GEN (871 versus 160) (Table 1). Accordingly, ratios of AUCELF after NEB to AUCELF after i.v. corrected for doses were estimated by the model to be 874 and 162 for AMK and GEN, respectively (Table 1), attesting to a high targeting advantage with NEB for both molecules. We previously conducted the same study with TOB, but a slightly different model, where an influx clearance from the ELF1 compartment to a central compartment, was used for data fitting (3). To facilitate comparisons, the previous data were reanalyzed using the same model as for AMK and GEN, which led to virtually similar parameter values in particular AUCs. New fits are presented in Fig. 1; the targeting advantage of NEB over TOB was estimated to be 315 (Table 1). From a pharmacokinetic point of view, AMK presents a targeting advantage for NEB over i.v. administration that was 2.8 and 5.4 times higher than those of TOB and GEN, respectively. These observations do not correspond to differences in physiochemical characteristics between aminoglycosides. Indeed, all aminoglycosides are small molecules (molecular weight, 585.6 g · mol−1 for AMK, 477.6 g · mol−1 for GEN, and 467.5 g · mol−1 for TOB), polycationic at a physiological pH (5 net charges for GEN and TOB and 4 charges for AMK), and do not show significant differences in log D values (−8.27 for GEN, −9.81 for AMK, and −9.45 for TOB) (Chemspider, www.chemspider.com). However, GEN solubility in water is at least 3 times lower than the solubility of AMK and TOB (12.6, 49.7, and 53.7 mg · ml−1, respectively) (Drugbank, www.drugbank.ca); but considering concentrations in ELF, this parameter does not explain differences in the pharmacokinetic behavior of aminoglycosides after NEB (Fig. 1).

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

Predicted concentration-time profiles of AMK, GEN, and TOB in plasma (solid line) and ELF (dashed line) from simultaneous plasma and ELF pharmacokinetic modeling, after i.v. administration (left panel) and intratracheal nebulization (right panel) of GEN (8 mg · kg−1), AMK (30 mg · kg−1), and TOB (3 mg · kg−1). Closed and open symbols represent experimental mean ± SD concentrations in plasma and ELF, respectively. TOB data obtained previously were reanalyzed using the same model as for AMK and GEN (3). TA, targeting advantage of NEB, corresponding to AUCELF after NEB over AUCELF after i.v. corrected for doses.

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

AMK, GEN, and TOB results when administered intravenously or via nebulizer

In conclusion, these results cannot be directly extrapolated to the clinical setting, and the choice among aminoglycosides depends on resistance patterns of pathogens. Yet, this new investigation clearly demonstrates a much greater, although unexplained, targeting advantage of NEB for AMK over GEN, with TOB being intermediate. Moreover, this study brings additional information for compiling a biopharmaceutical classification of nebulized antimicrobial agents, especially in this category of low-permeability molecules.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This work has benefited from the facilities and expertise of the PREBIOS platform (University of Poitiers).

FOOTNOTES

    • Received 13 June 2018.
    • Returned for modification 1 July 2018.
    • Accepted 28 July 2018.
    • Accepted manuscript posted online 6 August 2018.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Sole-Lleonart C,
    2. Roberts JA,
    3. Chastre J,
    4. Poulakou G,
    5. Palmer LB,
    6. Blot S,
    7. Felton T,
    8. Bassetti M,
    9. Luyt CE,
    10. Pereira JM,
    11. Riera J,
    12. Welte T,
    13. Qiu H,
    14. Rouby JJ,
    15. Rello J
    , ESGCIP Investigators. 2016. Global survey on nebulization of antimicrobial agents in mechanically ventilated patients: a call for international guidelines. Clin Microbiol Infect 22:359–364. doi:10.1016/j.cmi.2015.12.016.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  2. 2.↵
    1. Gontijo AV,
    2. Brillault J,
    3. Gregoire N,
    4. Lamarche I,
    5. Gobin P,
    6. Couet W,
    7. Marchand S
    . 2014. Biopharmaceutical characterization of nebulized antimicrobial agents in rats: 1. Ciprofloxacin, moxifloxacin, and grepafloxacin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 58:3942–3949. doi:10.1128/AAC.02818-14.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Marchand S,
    2. Gregoire N,
    3. Brillault J,
    4. Lamarche I,
    5. Gobin P,
    6. Couet W
    . 2015. Biopharmaceutical characterization of nebulized antimicrobial agents in rats: 3. Tobramycin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 59:6646–6647. doi:10.1128/AAC.01647-15.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. Gontijo AV,
    2. Gregoire N,
    3. Lamarche I,
    4. Gobin P,
    5. Couet W,
    6. Marchand S
    . 2014. Biopharmaceutical characterization of nebulized antimicrobial agents in rats: 2. Colistin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 58:3950–3956. doi:10.1128/AAC.02819-14.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    1. Heller DN,
    2. Peggins JO,
    3. Nochetto CB,
    4. Smith ML,
    5. Chiesa OA,
    6. Moulton K
    . 2005. LC/MS/MS measurement of gentamicin in bovine plasma, urine, milk, and biopsy samples taken from kidneys of standing animals. J Chromatogr B Analyt Technol Biomed Life Sci 821:22–30. doi:10.1016/j.jchromb.2005.04.015.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Marchand S,
    2. Gobin P,
    3. Brillault J,
    4. Baptista S,
    5. Adier C,
    6. Olivier JC,
    7. Mimoz O,
    8. Couet W
    . 2010. Aerosol therapy with colistin methanesulfonate: a biopharmaceutical issue illustrated in rats. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 54:3702–3707. doi:10.1128/AAC.00411-10.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    1. Bulitta JB,
    2. Bingolbali A,
    3. Shin BS,
    4. Landersdorfer CB
    . 2011. Development of a new pre- and post-processing tool (SADAPT-TRAN) for nonlinear mixed-effects modeling in S-ADAPT. AAPS J 13:201–211. doi:10.1208/s12248-011-9257-x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  8. 8.↵
    1. Marchand S,
    2. Gregoire N,
    3. Brillault J,
    4. Lamarche I,
    5. Gobin P,
    6. Couet W
    . 2016. Biopharmaceutical characterization of nebulized antimicrobial agents in rats: 4. Aztreonam. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 60:3196–3198. doi:10.1128/AAC.00165-16.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    1. Yapa SWS,
    2. Li J,
    3. Patel K,
    4. Wilson JW,
    5. Dooley MJ,
    6. George J,
    7. Clark D,
    8. Poole S,
    9. Williams E,
    10. Porter CJ,
    11. Nation RL,
    12. McIntosh MP
    . 2014. Pulmonary and systemic pharmacokinetics of inhaled and intravenous colistin methanesulfonate in cystic fibrosis patients: targeting advantage of inhalational administration. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 58:2570–2579. doi:10.1128/AAC.01705-13.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  • Copyright © 2018 American Society for Microbiology.

All Rights Reserved.

PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Biopharmaceutical Characterization of Nebulized Antimicrobial Agents in Rats: 6. Aminoglycosides
Sandrine Marchand, Matthieu Boisson, Shachi Mehta, Christophe Adier, Olivier Mimoz, Nicolas Grégoire, William Couet
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Sep 2018, 62 (10) e01261-18; DOI: 10.1128/AAC.01261-18

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.
Biopharmaceutical Characterization of Nebulized Antimicrobial Agents in Rats: 6. Aminoglycosides
(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
Biopharmaceutical Characterization of Nebulized Antimicrobial Agents in Rats: 6. Aminoglycosides
Sandrine Marchand, Matthieu Boisson, Shachi Mehta, Christophe Adier, Olivier Mimoz, Nicolas Grégoire, William Couet
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Sep 2018, 62 (10) e01261-18; DOI: 10.1128/AAC.01261-18
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • TEXT
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENT
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

KEYWORDS

aminoglycosides
biopharmaceutics
nebulization

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