|
|
|
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, June 2004, p . 1941-1947, Vol . 48, No . 6 Determination of the In Vivo Pharmacodynamic Profile of Cefepime against Extended-Spectrum-Beta-Lactamase-Producing Escherichia coli at Various InoculaDana Maglio,1 Christine Ong,1 Mary Anne Banevicius,1 Qiuming Geng,1 Charles H . Nightingale,1 and David P . Nicolau1,2* Center for Anti-Infective Research and Development,1 Division of Infectious Diseases, Hartford Hospital, Hartford, Connecticut 061022 Received 8 July 2003/ Returned for modification 16 January 2004/ Accepted 6 February 2004
The inoculum effect that has been associated with these pathogens, i.e., the severalfold increase in MIC observed with a 100-fold increase in inoculum, has been cited as a potential reason for clinical failures in spite of seemingly appropriate treatment for pathogens that appear to be susceptible in vitro . The presence of an ESBL-related drug resistance mechanism affects extended-spectrum cephalosporins to various degrees (2) . Certain enzymes are more efficient than others in their ability to hydrolyze particular extended-spectrum cephalosporins . To further complicate the issue, ESBLs may coexist with other resistance determinants and enzymes within an organism capable of inducing various levels of ESBL expression (2) . Therefore, it is possible that certain cephalosporins may be clinically effective in the presence of certain ESBLs; however, this possibility remains highly theoretical . Unfortunately, the lack of sufficient outcome data and the lack of obvious markers to predict a pathogen's capacity for hydrolyzing a given cephalosporin have severely limited treatment options for these organisms . However, a recent outcome study demonstrated favorable clinical responses to non-ceftazidime extended-spectrum cephalosporins for the treatment of pathogens that produced TEM-6 or TEM-12 ESBLs (13) . Thus, there is a need to better understand the impact of the presence of ESBLs on the efficacies of various treatment options . The time-dependent pharmacodynamic profile of cephalosporins has been quite reliable in predicting treatment outcomes in various infection models (4) and, to a more limited extent, in clinical practice (5) . However, its utility in the presence of ESBL production is less clear due, in part, to the assumption that MICs obtained by standard in vitro testing are unreliable . Thus, one objective of this study was to characterize the pharmacodynamic relationship between cefepime and Escherichia coli isolates that produce ESBLs compared to isolates without ESBLs in a murine thigh infection model to determine if the presence of ESBL enzymes affects the percentage of time the drug is above the MIC (%T>MIC) required for efficacy . In addition, the effectiveness of cefepime was evaluated against an elevated inoculum of 107 CFU/thigh and compared to its effectiveness against an inoculum size of 105 CFU/thigh to determine if the inoculum effect observed in vitro with ESBL-producing isolates correlates with a need for greater cefepime exposure in vivo when a higher inoculum is present .
Bacterial isolates. Six E . coli isolates were used throughout the in vivo study . Four of the isolates produced ESBLs . The ESBLs were characterized previously for three of these isolates, which were kindly supplied by J . Quinn (Rush University, Chicago, Ill.) . The fourth ESBL-producing isolate was a clinical isolate obtained at Hartford Hospital . Isoelectric-focusing studies of this isolate identified the presence of two TEM enzymes and a third enzyme presumptively identified as an SHV . Of the two comparator E . coli isolates that did not produce ESBLs, one was a clinical isolate and the other was E . coli ATCC 25922 . The impact of an inoculum effect on 16 additional isolates (8 ESBL- and 8 non-ESBL-producing strains) was also evaluated by in vitro testing . In vitro susceptibility testing. The MICs of cefepime were determined for all isolates with broth microdilution techniques per the NCCLS by using a minimum of three independent tests (10) . For each isolate, MICs were determined for inoculum sizes of 105 and 107 CFU/ml . Thigh infection model. Specific-pathogen-free female ICR mice weighing approximately 25 g were obtained from Harlan Sprague Dawley, Inc . (Indianapolis, Ind.) . The animals were maintained and utilized in accordance with National Research Council recommendations and were provided food and water ad libitum . Mice were rendered neutropenic by intraperitoneal injections of cyclophosphamide (150 mg/kg at 4 days and 100 mg/kg 1 day prior to inoculation) (8) . Renal impairment was induced with a single injection of uranyl nitrate (5 mg/kg) 3 days prior to inoculation (1) . A suspension of E . coli was prepared from a fresh subculture that had been incubated for less than 20 h and diluted to achieve inocula of 106 and 108 CFU/ml for the standard- and higher-inoculum bacterial-density studies, respectively . Final inoculum concentrations were confirmed by serial dilution and plating techniques . Thigh infection was produced by injection of 0.1 ml of the prepared inoculum into each mouse thigh 2 h prior to antimicrobial therapy . Pharmacokinetic studies and dosage regimen determination. Mice were prepared as described above for the thigh infection model . E . coli ATCC 25922 was used to produce thigh infections for the pharmacokinetic studies . Single doses of cefepime at 25, 75, and 300 mg/kg were administered subcutaneously in 0.2-ml volumes 2 h after thigh inoculation . Blood samples were collected by intracardiac puncture from six mice per time point for a total of eight time points over 12 h . Serum was separated after centrifugation and stored in polypropylene tubes at 80°C until analysis . The validation of an assay to determine cefepime concentrations in mouse serum was performed according to a previously established method for use with human serum (7) . The assay was linear over a range of 0.5 to 50 µg/ml (r2 = 0.99) . The intraday coefficients of variation for the low (2-µg/ml) and high (40-µg/ml) check samples were 2.99 and 1.70%, respectively . The interday coefficients of variation for the low and high check samples were 4.01 and 2.41%, respectively . The pharmacokinetic parameters for individual doses, including terminal-phase elimination rate constant, elimination half-life, apparent volume of the central compartment, apparent steady-state volume of distribution, area under the serum drug concentration-time curve, and total-body clearance, were calculated with first-order elimination by a nonlinear least-squares technique (PCNONLIN, version 4.2; Statistical Consultants, Lexington, Ky.) . Compartmental selection was based on visual inspection of the fit and use of the correlation between the observed and calculated concentrations . Mean pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated from the individual parameter estimates . The mean parameter estimates were used to simulate a variety of cefepime exposures, expressed as %T>MICs . Treatment regimens. Two hours after thigh infection was established as described above, treatment was initiated with subcutaneous doses of cefepime or, for untreated controls, normal saline . Treatment regimens were selected to provide a spectrum of cefepime exposures, expressed as %T>MICs, for each isolate . The %T>MIC was calculated using MICs obtained with both the standard inoculum (105 CFU/thigh) and the 100-fold-higher inoculum (107 CFU/thigh) for the low- and high-inoculum in vivo studies, respectively . Seventy-five groups of at least six mice per group received treatment with cefepime over 24 h . Seventeen groups (six mice per group) of untreated controls received normal saline in the same volume and on the same schedule as for the treatment regimens . Cefepime doses ranged from 0.05 to 1,500 mg/kg/day, divided into one to five doses . In addition, the evaluation of cefepime treatment was extended to 48 h for an additional six treatment groups . The 48-h regimens were evaluated for three isolates (two ESBL-producing strains and one non-ESBL-producing strain) at both inoculum sizes to assess whether cefepime efficacy was maintained in the presence of ESBL production . Efficacy as assessed by bacterial density. Two hours after infection was established and just prior to dosing (0 h), control mice (six per group) were sacrificed . After 24 h of treatment, both the untreated controls and the treated mice were sacrificed . The animals were euthanized by CO2 inhalation followed by cervical dislocation . Both thighs were removed and individually homogenized in 5 ml of normal saline . Serial dilutions were plated on Trypticase soy agar with 5% sheep blood for CFU counting . Efficacy (change in bacterial density) was calculated by subtracting the mean log10 number of CFU per thigh of the control mice sacrificed just prior to treatment initiation (0 h) from the mean log10 number of CFU per thigh of untreated controls and treatment groups at the end of 24 h of therapy . Assessment of efficacy after 48 h of treatment was undertaken as described above for the 24-h assessment . Efficacy (change in bacterial density) was calculated by subtracting the mean log10 number of CFU per thigh of the control mice sacrificed just prior to treatment initiation (0 h) from the mean log10 number of CFU per thigh of untreated controls and treatment groups at the end of 48 h of therapy . Data analysis. The changes in bacterial density in the thigh, expressed as changes in log10 numbers of CFU for both cefepime-treated and untreated control animals, were reported using descriptive statistics . The sigmoid maximum dose-effect (Emax) model using the maximum effective concentration was used to characterize the relationship between the %T>MIC and cefepime efficacy . To compare magnitudes of efficacy among the isolates tested, predicted efficacy at a %T>MIC of 70% was calculated for each strain, as the efficacies of cephalosporins have been shown to be maximized at this point . The %T>MIC required to produce 80% maximum bactericidal efficacy (80% effective dose [ED80]) was used as a reference point to compare the degrees of cefepime exposure required at 107 and 105 CFU/thigh . The efficacies of cefepime for the treatment of isolates with and without ESBL enzymes were compared using Student's t test .
The dose-response relationships for ESBL- and non-ESBL-producing isolates are presented in Fig . 2 . The degrees of cefepime exposure (%T>MIC) required to achieve the ED80 were compared between ESBL- and non-ESBL-producing isolates to see if the presence of these enzymes was associated with greater drug exposure requirements . We noted no significant differences in exposure requirements to achieve the ED80 among the isolates studied (P = 0.80) . In addition, using a %T>MIC of 70% as a reference point for comparison, no significant difference in predicted magnitude of kill was observed between ESBL- and non-ESBL-producing E . coli isolates (P = 0.33) . These data are presented in Table 1 .
It is noteworthy that the ESBL-producing isolates appeared quite different from ATCC 25922 with regard to predicted efficacy at a %T>MIC of 70% . The fact that no significant difference was observed between ESBL- and non-ESBL-producing isolates collectively may be due to differences in efficacy between the non-ESBL-producing comparator isolates themselves . A larger sample size of isolates would clearly provide a better representation of cefepime activity among clinical isolates without ESBLs for which the cefepime MICs varied . However, the similarity between EC 120 and the ESBL-producing isolates indicates that the results observed with the ESBL-producing isolates are not based on ESBL production in and of itself . A significant concern in regard to ESBL-producing isolates is that they appear to affect extended-spectrum cephalosporins to various degrees in vitro at high inocula . In our study we found a significant increase in cefepime MICs for increased inocula of nine E . coli isolates that did not produce ESBLs . Furthermore, the magnitude of an in vitro inoculum effect appeared greater among ESBL-negative than among ESBL-positive E . coli isolates . However, MICs for the majority of the ESBL-negative isolates at 105 CFU/ml were quite low and remained in the range indicating susceptibility when the inoculum was 107 CFU/ml, regardless of the magnitude of the increase . More important, for both ESBL-positive and -negative pathogens, the varied increases in MICs in vitro at higher inocula may not be predictive of in vivo potency for all cephalosporins . Previously, cefepime was effective in a rat abscess model in which the animals were infected with a high inoculum (>107 CFU) of Klebsiella pneumoniae that harbored the TEM-26 enzyme (12) . Cefepime MICs were in the range indicating susceptibility when the inoculum was 105 CFU/ml but resistant when the inoculum was 107 CFU/ml . Using simulated human exposures, the authors noted that the greater efficacy observed with cefepime than with the other beta-lactams tested was surprising since cefepime appeared least potent in vitro against an inoculum of 107 CFU/ml in comparison to the other agents . However, efficacy seems to be explained in that study by MICs obtained for an inoculum of 105 CFU/ml, against which cefepime was most potent in comparison . Another study that evaluated K . pneumoniae with various TEM-derived ESBLs noted that static doses of several cephalosporins were similar at low and high inocula (D . Andes, G . Jacoby, and W . A . Craig, Abstr . 35th Intersci . Conf . Antimicrob . Agents Chemother., abstr . A62, 1995) . Our study supports these findings with several clinical E . coli isolates that harbor various TEM-derived ESBL enzymes . We evaluated equivalent cefepime exposures (adjusted for MICs obtained with both inoculum sizes) in vivo at both the standard inoculum and a 100-fold-higher inoculum with the presumption that similar degrees of exposure, and thus higher doses, would be required to provide similar bactericidal effects at higher inocula . Interestingly, this pattern was evident only for E . coli ATCC 25922 . In contrast, the dose-response curves for the ESBL-producing isolates indicate that similar milligram-per-kilogram doses would achieve similar reductions in bacterial density with both inocula . Administration of the same milligram-per-kilogram doses used in standard-inoculum in vivo tests to animals infected with 107 CFU of EC 285/thigh further supports this prediction, as the same doses produced similar reductions in bacterial density at both the high and low inocula . That these results were obtained from the high-inoculum infection in spite of a %T>MIC of 0 calls into question the validity of a presumed in vivo inoculum effect for cefepime against E . coli isolates with the ESBLs evaluated in this study . It is possible that the presence of other ESBL enzymes, such as SHV-derived enzymes, the combination of various other resistance mechanisms, and different species (i.e., Klebsiella spp.) may produce different results . The number of isolates evaluated in this study was small and not representative of all ESBL- or non-ESBL-producing E . coli isolates . However, the similarities noted between these resistant pathogens and the non-ESBL-producing isolate EC 120 seem to indicate that the presence of ESBLs is not an independent predictor of efficacy . Rather, the cefepime MIC obtained with standard susceptibility tests was more predictive of in vivo outcome, regardless of the inoculum size . These data support the use of conventional MIC determinations in the pharmacodynamic assessment of cefepime .
This work was supported by a grant from Elan Pharmaceuticals .
What Is Pcr?,
What Is Anthrax?,
What Is Bioremediation?,
What Is Biotechnology?,
What Is Yeast?,
i,
Microbe,
e,
Microorganism,
a,
Bacteria,
e,
Bacterium,
n,
Microorganisms,
n,
Penicillin,
a,
Staphylococcus,
s,
Escherichia coli,
r,
Salmonella typhimurium,
o,
Escherichia coli,
r,
Neisseria,
e,
Salmonella,
s,
Escherichia coli,
s,
Micrococci,
a,
Antibiotic prophylaxis,
s,
S. cerevisiae,
c,
Yeasts,
c,
Culture medium,
i,
Staphylococcus aureus,
e,
Candida albicans,
i,
Microbial,
a,
Lactococci,
s,
Bifidobacteria,
e,
Candida albicans,
i,
Candida albicans,
n,
Clostridia
|
© 2005
Transgalactic Ltd (manufacturer of Bioscreen C software) |
Privacy Statement | P.O. Box
1393, 00101 Helsinki, Finland,
Last modified: May 25, 2005
| ||||||