ABT492 and levofloxacin: comparison of their pharmacodynamics and their abilities to prevent the selection of resistant Staphylococcus aureus in an in vitro dynamic model

Alexander A. Firsov1,*, Sergey N. Vostrov1, Irene Yu. Lubenko1,2, Alexander P. Arzamastsev2, Yury A. Portnoy1 and Stephen H. Zinner3

1 Department of Pharmacokinetics & Pharmacodynamics, Gause Institute of New Antibiotics, Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, 11 Bolshaya Pirogovskaya Street, Moscow, 119021; 2 Institute of Normal Physiology, Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, Moscow, Russia; 3 Department of Medicine, Mount Auburn Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, MA, USA

Received 2 December 2003; returned 12 February 2004; revised 18 March 2004; accepted 19 March 2004


    Abstract
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Acknowledgements
 References
 
Objective: To compare the kinetics of killing/regrowth of differentially susceptible clinical isolates of Staphylococcus aureus exposed to ABT492 and levofloxacin and to explore their relative abilities to prevent the selection of resistant mutants.

Methods: Three clinical isolates of S. aureus—including two ciprofloxacin-susceptible S. aureus, 201 and 480—and a ciprofloxacin-resistant S. aureus 866, were exposed to clinically achievable ratios of area under the curve (AUC) to MIC in a dynamic model that simulated human pharmacokinetics of ABT492 (400 mg) and levofloxacin (500 mg) as a single dose. In addition, S. aureus 201 was exposed to single and multiple doses of ABT492 and levofloxacin (both once daily for 3 days) over wide ranges of 24 h AUC/MIC (AUC24/MIC) including clinically achievable AUC24/MIC ratios.

Results: With each isolate, ABT492 at clinically achievable AUC/MICs produced greater anti-staphylococcal effects than levofloxacin. Areas between the control growth and the time–kill curves (ABBC in single dose simulations and the sum of ABBCs determined after the first, second and third dosing in multiple dose simulations—ABBC1+2+3) were higher with ABT492 than levofloxacin. Moreover, at comparable AUC/MICs and AUC24/MICs, the maximal reductions in the starting inoculum of ABT492-exposed S. aureus were more pronounced than with levofloxacin. Loss in susceptibility of S. aureus 201 exposed to ABT492 or levofloxacin depended on the simulated AUC24/MIC. Although the maximal increase in MIC (MICfinal) related to its initial value (MICinitial) was seen at a higher AUC24/MIC ratio of ABT492 (120 h) than levofloxacin (50 h), similar AUC24/MICs (240 and 200 h, respectively) were protective against the selection of resistant S. aureus. These threshold values are readily achievable with 400 mg ABT492 (AUC24/MIC 870 h) but not with 500 mg levofloxacin (AUC24/MIC 70 h).

Conclusion: Overall, these findings predict greater efficacy of clinically achievable AUC/MIC (or AUC24/MIC) of ABT492 both in terms of the anti-staphylococcal effect and prevention of the selection of resistant mutants.

Keywords: S. aureus , resistance , in vitro models


    Introduction
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Acknowledgements
 References
 
A novel 1-(6-amino-3,5-difluoropyridin-2-yl)-8-chloroquinolone antibiotic, ABT492, has been shown to be more active than other fluoroquinolones against Streptococcus pneumoniae, Staphylococcus aureus and Enterococcus faecalis.1 The present study examines the comparative pharmacodynamics of ABT492 and levofloxacin with differentially susceptible strains of S. aureus in an in vitro dynamic model that simulates human pharmacokinetics. Also, the relative ability of ABT492 and levofloxacin to prevent the selection of resistant S. aureus was compared using a recently described method.2


    Materials and methods
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Acknowledgements
 References
 
Antimicrobial agents and bacterial strains

ABT492 and levofloxacin (kindly provided by Abbott Laboratories, North Chicago, IL, USA and Ortho-McNeill Pharmaceuticals, Raritan, NJ, USA, respectively) were used in the study. Three differentially susceptible clinical isolates of S. aureus including two ciprofloxacin-susceptible strains, S. aureus 201 and 480 (MICs of ciprofloxacin 0.8 and 2 mg/L, respectively) and a ciprofloxacin-resistant strain 866 (MIC of ciprofloxacin 4 mg/L) were selected for the study. S. aureus 201 was kindly provided by Dr E. Gugutsidze from Moscow Clinical Hospital and S. aureus 480 and 866 were kindly provided by Dr M. Edelstein from the Institute of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy of Smolensk State Medical Academy (Russia).

Susceptibility testing was performed in triplicate using broth microdilution techniques3 at 24 h post-exposure, with the organism grown in Ca2+ (20–25 mg/L)- and Mg2+ (10–12.5 mg/L)-supplemented Mueller–Hinton broth (MHB, BBL, Becton Dickinson and Company, Sparks, MD, USA) at an inoculum size of 106 cfu/mL. To establish precise values, MICs were determined using doubling dilutions, with starting concentrations of 3, 4 and 5 mg/L, as described previously.4 The MICs of ABT492 for S. aureus 201, 480 and 866 were 0.02, 0.06 and 0.12 mg/L, respectively. The respective MICs of levofloxacin were 0.6, 1 and 3 mg/L.

The mutant prevention concentrations (MPCs) of ABT492 and levofloxacin for S. aureus 201 were determined as described elsewhere.5 Briefly, the tested microorganisms were cultured in MHB and incubated for 24 h. Then, the suspension was centrifuged (4000g for 10 min) and re-suspended in MHB to yield a concentration of 1010 cfu/mL. A series of agar plates containing known fluoroquinolone concentrations was then inoculated with ~1010 cfu of S. aureus 201. The inoculated plates were incubated for 48 h at 37°C and logarithms of bacterial numbers were plotted against fluoroquinolone concentrations. MPC was taken as the point where the plot intersected the x-axis, i.e. the lowest fluoroquinolone concentration that completely inhibited growth. The MPCs of ABT492 and levofloxacin were estimated at 0.07 and 1.75 mg/L, respectively.

Simulated pharmacokinetic profiles

Reported concentration–time data obtained in humans after a single 400 mg dose of ABT492 and after daily dosing for 5 days6 were fitted by a three-exponential equation with an absorption half-life of 0.2 h, a distribution half-life of 1.7 h and an elimination half-life (terminal half-life) of 25 h (Figure 1, upper panel). Best fit estimates were obtained by a non-linear regression analysis using TOPFIT software (V. 1.1—Gödeke, Schering, Thomae, 1991). Then, the same fitting procedure was applied to combined data obtained after ABT492 administration at doses 100, 200 and 400 mg.6



View larger version (23K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 1. Time courses of mean plasma concentrations of ABT492 (400 mg per day, upper panel) in humans6 and those of dose-normalized concentrations (100, 200 and 400 mg, bottom panel) fitted by equation 1. The arrows reflect ABT492 dosing. The bars reflect the standard deviation.

 
Time-courses of the geometric mean ABT492 concentration (C) were normalized by the dose (D). As seen in the bottom panel of Figure 1, there is no dose-dependent shift in C/D-time curves after the first and fifth doses of ABT492. This allows fitting the data with a linear model. The three-exponential equation fits the dose-normalized data with an absorption half-life of 0.2 h, a distribution half-life (t1/2) of 1.9 h and an elimination half-life (t1/2) of 23 h. This parameter set was used in in vitro simulations of ABT492 pharmacokinetics.

Because of the relatively minor impact of the absorption phase on the observed pharmacokinetics [the partial area that reflects the contribution of the absorption phase was estimated at only 9% of the total area under the curve (AUC)], a bi-exponential concentration decay of ABT492 was simulated with t1/2{alpha} of 2 h and t1/2ß of 23 h. Two quasi-linear portions of each concentration-time curve (Figure 2, left panel) approximated this bi-exponential profile. With levofloxacin, a series of mono-exponential profiles were simulated with t1/2ß of 6.8 h (Figure 2, right panel) that represent weighted means of the values reported in humans: 6.0–7.4 h.710



View larger version (24K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 2. Target pharmacokinetic profiles of ABT492 (thin lines), their approximation (bold lines) and simulated pharmacokinetics of levofloxacin in single-dose studies. The simulated AUC/MIC (h) is indicated by the number at each plot.

 
In single dose simulations, S. aureus 201 was exposed to eight-fold ranging AUC/MIC of both ABT492 and levofloxacin, i.e. from 60–480 h (Figure 2, upper panel). In addition, three therapeutically achievable AUC/MICs that correspond to a 400 mg dose of ABT492 and a 500 mg dose of levofloxacin were simulated with each of the three S. aureus strains (Figure 2, bottom panel). In multiple dose simulations with S. aureus 201, when daily dosing of ABT492 and levofloxacin was mimicked for three consecutive days, 24 h AUC (AUC24) to MIC ratios varied from 60–480 h and from 15–200 h, respectively (Figure 3). In addition, the clinically achievable AUC24/MICs of 870 h (ABT492) and 70 h (levofloxacin) were simulated.



View larger version (26K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 3. In vitro simulated pharmacokinetic profiles of ABT492 and levofloxacin in multiple dose studies. The simulated AUC24/MIC (h) is indicated by the number at each curve. The arrows reflect quinolone dosing. The MSW is indicated by the dashed area.

 
In vitro dynamic model

A previously described dynamic model11 was used in the study. Briefly, the model consists of two connected flasks, one containing fresh MHB and the other a magnetic stirrer; and a central unit, with the same broth containing either a bacterial culture alone (control growth experiments) or a bacterial culture plus antimicrobial (killing/regrowth experiments). Peristaltic pumps circulate fresh nutrient medium to the flasks: from the central 70 mL unit at a flow rate of 22.4 mL/h during first 16 h after dosing of ABT492 and then at a flow rate of 2.1 mL/h. With levofloxacin, the central unit volume was 60 mL and the flow rate 6.1 mL/h. The reliability of fluoroquinolone pharmacokinetic simulations and the high reproducibility of the time–kill curves provided by the model have been reported elsewhere.11

The system was filled with sterile MHB and placed in an incubator at 37°C. The central unit was inoculated with an 18 h culture of S. aureus. After the bacteria had been incubated for 2 h, the resulting exponentially growing cultures reached ~106 cfu/mL in single-dose simulations, or 108 cfu/mL (6 x 109–7 x 109 per 60–70 mL central compartment) in multiple dose simulations, at which time ABT492 or levofloxacin was injected into the central unit.

Quantification of the time–kill curves and antimicrobial effect

In each experiment, multiple sampling of bacteria-containing media from the central compartment was performed throughout the observation period. One hundred microlitre samples were serially diluted as appropriate, and 100 µL was plated onto agar plates. The duration of the experiments was defined in each case as the time—after a single or the final dose—when antibiotic-exposed bacteria reached the maximum numbers observed in the absence of antibiotic (>108 cfu/mL). In multiple dose studies, the minimum duration was 72 h if no regrowth occurred. The lower limit of accurate detection was 2 x 102 cfu/mL. A level of 10 cfu/mL was considered to be the theoretical limit of detection.

Based on time–kill data obtained in single-dose simulations, the area between the normal growth curve and the curve of bacteria exposed to antibiotic (ABBC)12 was calculated from time zero to 24 h. In multiple dose simulations, a cumulative antimicrobial effect was expressed as the sum of ABBC determined within the first, second and third dosing interval (ABBC1, ABBC2 and ABBC3, respectively): ABBC1 + ABBC2 + ABBC3 = ABBC1+2+3. The upper limit of bacterial numbers, i.e. the cutoff level on the regrowth and control growth curves used to determine ABBC and ABBC1+2+3 was 109 cfu/mL. The computation of ABBC, ABBC1, ABBC2 and ABBC3 is depicted graphically in Figure 4.



View larger version (21K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 4. Determination of ABBC: killing/regrowth of S. aureus 201 exposed to one dose of ABT492 (upper panel). Determination of ABBC1, ABBC2 and ABBC3: killing/regrowth of S. aureus 201 exposed to three 24 h doses of ABT492 (bottom panel).

 
ABBC versus AUC/MIC relationships were fitted by the Boltzmann function:

(Equation 1)
where Y is the ABBC, Ymax and Ymin are its maximal and minimal values, respectively, x is the AUC/MIC ratio, x0 is the AUC/MIC that corresponds to Ymax/2, and dx is the width parameter.

Quasi-linear portion of the AUC24/MIC plots of ABBC1+2+3 were fitted by a linear equation:

(Equation 2)
where Y is ABBC1+2+3, x is log AUC24/MIC, a and b are parameters.

To express the antimicrobial effect (ABBC1+2+3) as a function of quinolone dose (D), D was calculated for each simulated AUC24/MIC according to linear equation:

(Equation 3)
where c is equal to 0.044 for ABT492 and 0.11 for levofloxacin.13

Quantification of bacterial resistance

To reveal possible changes in the susceptibility of ABT492- and levofloxacin-exposed S. aureus 201, precise fluoroquinolone MICs of bacterial cultures sampled from the model were determined daily over the 3 day treatment. The stability of resistance was determined by consecutive passaging of ABT492- and levofloxacin-exposed S. aureus onto antibiotic-free agar plates for 5 days.


    Results
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Acknowledgements
 References
 
Single dose simulations

Time courses of killing and regrowth of S. aureus 201 exposed to bi-exponentially decreasing concentrations of ABT492 and mono-exponential concentration decay of levofloxacin at AUC/MIC of 60–480 h are shown in the upper panel of Figure 5. The time–kill curves observed with both quinolones yielded similar patterns: regrowth followed a prompt reduction in bacterial numbers. At a given AUC/MIC ratio, the maximal reductions in the starting inoculum of ABT492-exposed S. aureus were greater than those with levofloxacin, but it showed longer times to regrowth than ABT492. At AUC/MIC of 60, 120, 240 and 480 h, the minimal numbers (Nmins) of surviving S. aureus exposed to ABT492 were lower than with levofloxacin: 1.8 x 103 versus 1.5 x 104, 1.3 x 103 versus 3.5 x 103, 7 x 102 versus 1 x 103 and 1.5 x 102 versus 1 x 103 cfu/mL, respectively. The respective times to regrowth were 9 versus 16 h, 11 versus 22 h, 11 versus 26 h and 15 versus 30 h. However, at AUC/MIC ratios provided by the clinical dose of ABT492 (400 mg), regrowth of all three strains of S. aureusS. aureus 201, 480 and 866—was observed much later than in simulations of the clinically achievable AUC/MIC of levofloxacin (500 mg) (Figure 5, bottom panels). Again, the maximal reductions in viable counts after ABT492 exposure were greater than with levofloxacin: Nmin of 1.5 x 102 versus 1.1 x 104 cfu/mL (S. aureus 201), 6.5 x 102 versus 9.3 x 103 cfu/mL (S. aureus 480) and 7 x 102 versus 1.5 x 104 cfu/mL (S. aureus 866), respectively.



View larger version (20K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 5. Killing/regrowth kinetics of S. aureus (S.a.) 201 exposed to the quinolones at the comparable AUC/MIC ratios (upper panel) and those of three strains of S. aureus at the clinically achievable AUC/MIC ratios (bottom panel). The simulated AUC/MIC (h) is indicated by the number at each curve.

 
The inherent difference in ABT492 and levofloxacin pharmacodynamics is visualized by the AUC/MIC relationships of ABBC (Figure 6, left panel). A specific strain-independent relationship was inherent for each quinolone, and equation 1 fits the data. Although more pronounced effects of levofloxacin were seen for most AUC/MIC ranges (60–480 h), the clinically achievable AUC/MIC ratios of ABT492 were more efficient than the respective AUC/MICs of levofloxacin. For example, with S. aureus 201, an 870 h AUC/MIC produced 1.7 times higher ABBC than a 70 h AUC/MIC of levofloxacin: 140 versus 83 (log cfu/mL) x h. With two other organisms, the clinically achievable AUC/MICs of ABT492 (290 h for S. aureus 480 and 145 h for S. aureus 866) also produced greater effects than the respective AUC/MICs of levofloxacin (55 h for S. aureus 480 and 18 h for S. aureus 866): 1.5-fold difference in the ABBCs with S. aureus 480 and four-fold difference with S. aureus 866 (Figure 7).



View larger version (11K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 6. AUC/MIC and AUC24/MIC relationships of ABBC and ABBC1+2+3, respectively. The symbols are the same as in Figure 5.

 


View larger version (20K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 7. Comparative anti-staphylococcal effects of ABT492 and levofloxacin against three strains of S. aureus (S.a.) at the clinically achievable AUC/MIC ratios.

 
Multiple dose simulations

Time–kill dynamics. Time courses of ABT492- and levofloxacin-exposed S. aureus 201 are shown in Figure 8. At most studied AUC24/MIC ratios, regrowth followed a prompt reduction in bacterial numbers after each dosing. However, at the clinically achievable AUC24/MIC ratio of ABT492 (870 h) but not levofloxacin (70 h), no bacterial regrowth occurred. AUC24/MIC-dependent relationships of ABBC1+2+3 (Figure 6, right panel) were similar to the AUC/MIC relationships of ABBC delineated in single-dose simulations. Because of fewer points with ABT492, these data could not be accurately approximated by equation 1. Therefore, quasi-linear portions of both ABT492 and levofloxacin plots were fitted by equation 2. Like single-dose simulations, with ABT492 the 870 h clinical value of the AUC24/MIC ratio produced a 1.7 times greater antimicrobial effect than a 70 h value for levofloxacin: ABBC1+2+3 of 505 versus 290 (log cfu/mL) x h.



View larger version (15K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 8. Killing/regrowth kinetics of S. aureus 201 exposed to the quinolones. The simulated AUC24/MIC (h) is indicated by the number at each curve. The arrows reflect quinolone dosing.

 
Bacterial resistance

Significant increases in MIC of ABT492 were observed at AUC24/MIC of 60 and 120 h, and with levofloxacin at AUC24/MIC of 25–100 h after 3 days exposure of S. aureus 201 (Figure 9). With both quinolones, these increases were most pronounced after the third quinolone dose. Serial passages of resistant isolates onto antibiotic-free plates revealed minimal or no changes in the elevated MICs, showing stable resistance after five passages (data not shown). At the higher AUC24/MIC (≥240 h with ABT492 and 200 h with levofloxacin), no loss in the susceptibility of S. aureus was documented. Therefore, these threshold values may be considered to be protective against the selection of resistant mutants.



View larger version (20K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 9. Changes in the susceptibility of S. aureus 201 exposed to ABT492 and levofloxacin at different AUC24/MICs.

 
Plotting the ratio of the elevated MIC (MICfinal) to the starting values (MICinitial) against the simulated AUC24/MIC ratio resulted in two different relationships that appeared to be quinolone-specific (Figure 10, upper panel). As seen in the figure, the ABT492 curve is shifted towards the higher AUC24/MICs compared with the levofloxacin curve. The clinically achievable AUC24/MIC ratio of ABT492 (870 h) is far in excess of the 240 h protective value. Unlike ABT492, the clinically achievable AUC24/MIC ratio of levofloxacin (70 h) is less than its protective value (200 h).



View larger version (11K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 10. AUC24/MIC and T>MPC relationships of S. aureus 201 resistance to ABT492 and levofloxacin.

 
Resistance of quinolone-exposed S. aureus 201 also correlated with the time above MPC (T>MPC). As seen in the bottom panel of Figure 10, longer T>MPCs were associated with less pronounced increases in MIC, although a specific T>MPC relationship of MICfinal/MICinitial was inherent for each quinolone. To protect from the selection of resistant S. aureus, the shorter T>MPCs were needed with ABT492 (<10 h) than levofloxacin (18 h).


    Discussion
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Acknowledgements
 References
 
Single and multiple dose simulations at comparable AUC/MIC or AUC24/MIC ratios (from 50–60 to 100–120 h) showed more pronounced killing (Nmin) of S. aureus 201 with ABT492 than levofloxacin, although the antimicrobial effects (ABBC) were smaller. Despite lower bacterial counts after ABT492 exposure, the times to regrowth were shorter than with levofloxacin. This earlier regrowth occurred because of the relatively rapid decline in ABT492 concentrations to the MIC level. Unlike levofloxacin, most events reflected by the time–kill curves at ABT492 AUC/MICs of 60–480 h were associated with the distribution phase (t1/2{alpha} 1.9 h) rather than the elimination phase (t1/2ß 23 h) of the simulated concentration–time curves (Figure 2, upper panel).

It is fair to say that t1/2ß of 23 h simulated in this study differs from values reported in human studies with ABT492: 4.2–8.514 and 8.3–9 h.15 This difference is due to the fact that the reported t1/2ßs ignore the terminal phase of the concentration-time curves (from 12–48 h) that reflects enterohepatic recycling of ABT492. In this light, t1/2ß simulated in the present study may be considered as an apparent half-life that describes ABT492 pharmacokinetics as observed in humans, regardless of the underlying mechanisms.

Despite the relatively smaller anti-staphylococcal effects of ABT492 compared with levofloxacin at a given AUC/MIC or AUC24/MIC ratio, the clinically achievable AUC/MIC or AUC24/MIC ratios, i.e. those provided by a 400 mg dose of ABT492, produced much greater ABBCs with S. aureus 201 (Figure 6), 480 and 866 (Figure 7) than did clinically achievable AUC/MICs or AUC24/MICs of 500 mg levofloxacin. Moreover, similar 1.7-fold differences in the antimicrobial effect in terms of ABBC or ABBC1+2+3 were observed in single- and multiple-dose simulations. Concordant estimates of relative anti-staphylococcal efficacy have been reported with moxifloxacin and levofloxacin in previous single-dose and 3 day dosing in vitro studies.16

Like our study with four fluoroquinolones,2 loss in the susceptibility of ABT492- and levofloxacin-exposed S. aureus 201 (MICfinal/MICinitial) depended on the simulated AUC24/MIC (Figure 10, upper panel). However, with ABT492, the maximal increase in MICfinal was seen at a higher AUC24/MIC ratio (120 h) than with levofloxacin (50 h). Resistance of quinolone-exposed S. aureus 201 was also related to T>MPC: the longer the T>MPCs, the less pronounced the loss in susceptibility. Like AUC24/MIC relationships, a specific T>MPC relationship with MICfinal/MICinitial was inherent in each drug (Figure 10, bottom panel). To protect against the selection of resistant S. aureus, shorter T>MPCs were needed with ABT492 (<10 h) than levofloxacin (18 h). In contrast to data reported with more slowly eliminated quinolones,2 increases in ABT492 MICs did not correlate with the time when ABT492 concentrations were within the mutant selection window (MSW), i.e. between MPC and MIC (TMSW). With four of five simulated regimens (including AUC24/MIC of 60 and 120 h) where loss in susceptibility was observed and AUC24/MIC of 240 and 480 h without such a loss, TMSWs were similar (~17% of the dosing interval). At the same time, no increases in MIC were associated with AUC24/MIC of 870 h when TMSW was 38% of the dosing interval.

Both AUC24/MIC and T>MPC relationships of the MICfinal/MICinitial ratio allow prediction of threshold values that prevent the selection of resistant S. aureus. In terms of the AUC24/MIC ratio, these threshold values are similar for ABT492 and levofloxacin (240 and 200 h, respectively), but in terms of T>MPC they are different: 10 versus 18 h. The clinically achievable AUC24/MIC ratio of ABT492 (870 h) is far in excess of the 240 h protective value. Unlike ABT492, the clinically achievable AUC24/MIC ratio of levofloxacin (70 h) is less than its protective value (200 h).

Based on linear relationships of AUC to the dose for ABT492 and levofloxacin13 (equation 3), the AUC24/MIC relationships of ABBC1+2+3 and MICfinal/MICinitial can be presented as respective dose relationships. As seen in the left upper panel of Figure 11, a 400 mg dose of ABT492 provides a 60% greater effect (ABBC1+2+3) on S. aureus 201 than a 500 mg dose of levofloxacin. Also, the clinical dose of ABT492 but not levofloxacin may be able to prevent the loss in susceptibility (Figure 11, left bottom panel).



View larger version (16K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 11. Dose-dependent ABBC1+2+3 and MICfinal/MICinitial for quinolone-exposed S. aureus: impact of protein binding.

 
It is fair to say that this analysis ignores protein binding and, therefore, it may overestimate the true effect of more highly bound ABT492 (84%)6 relative to levofloxacin (30%).17 If the data presented in the left panel of Figure 11 were corrected for protein binding, the described advantages of ABT492 would disappear. Unlike total concentrations, the free concentration analysis predicts similar MICfinal/MICinitial ratios (Figure 11, right bottom panel) but lower ABBC1+2+3 with 400 mg ABT492 compared with 500 mg levofloxacin (Figure 11, right upper panel). Is the free concentration analysis that is often used in studies with in vitro models more correct than that based on the total concentrations? Far from it, because this mechanistic transformation of the data does not consider the dynamic nature of the equilibrium between protein-bound and -unbound fractions. As a result, the true impact of protein binding on the antimicrobial effect is overestimated and, therefore, the predicted effect is underestimated. So, in terms of the dose predictions, the truth stands between those that do or do not consider protein binding. Furthermore, no protein binding effects on killing of S. aureus, S. pneumoniae or Escherichia coli were reported in a recent in vitro study with three differentially bound quinolones.18 Similar conclusions were drawn using a murine pneumococcal pneumonia model: both total and free concentrations of the five quinolones were equally predictive of the 50% maximal animal survival.19

Overall, these findings predict greater efficacy of clinically achievable AUC/MIC and AUC24/MIC of ABT492 both in terms of the anti-staphylococcal effect and prevention of the selection of resistant mutants.


    Acknowledgements
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Acknowledgements
 References
 
This study was supported by Abbott Laboratories.


    Footnotes
 
* Corresponding author. Tel: +7-095-708-3341; Fax: +7-095-245-0295; E-mail: firsov{at}dol.ru


    References
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Acknowledgements
 References
 
1 . Andrews, J. M., Ashby, J. P., Jevons, G. et al. (2003). In vitro activity of ABT-492 compared with other quinolone antibiotics. In Programs and Abstracts of the Forty-third Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, San-Diego, CA, 2003. Abstract E147, p. 199. American Society for Microbiology. Washington, DC, USA.

2 . Firsov, A. A., Vostrov, S. N., Lubenko, I. Y. et al. (2003). In vitro pharmacodynamic evaluation of the mutant selection window hypothesis using four fluoroquinolones against Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 47, 1604–13.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

3 . Andrews, J. M., Ashby, J. P., Jevons, G. et al. (2003). Determination of in vitro susceptibility to ABT-492 by BSAC standardized methodology. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 52, 526–27.[Free Full Text]

4 . Hyatt, J. M., Nix, D. E., & Schentag, J. J. (1994). Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamic activities of ciprofloxacin against strains of Streptococcus pneumoniae, Staphylococcus aureus, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa for which MICs are similar. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 38, 2730–7.[Abstract]

5 . Zhao, X. & Drlica, K. (2001). Restricting the selection of antibiotic-resistant mutants: a general strategy derived from fluoroquinolone studies. Clinical Infectious Diseases 33, Suppl. 3, S147–56.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

6 . ABT492. Protocol No. M01–344, Incorporating Amendment No. 1 – 25 October 2001. Abbott Laboratories.

7 . Chien, S.-C., Chow, A. T., Natarajan, J. et al. (1997). Absence of age and gender effects on the pharmacokinetics of a single 500-milligram oral dose of levofloxacin in healthy subjects. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 41, 1562–5.[Abstract]

8 . Chien, S.-C., Chow, A. T., Rogge, M. C. et al. (1997). Pharmacokinetics and safety of oral levofloxacin in human immunodeficiency virus-infected individuals receiving concomitant zidovudine. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 41, 1765–9.[Abstract]

9 . Chien, S.-C., Rogge, M. C. & Gisclon, L. G. (1997). Pharmacokinetic profile of levofloxacin following once-daily 500-milligram oral or intravenous doses. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 41, 2256–60.[Abstract]

10 . Lee, L.-J., Hafkin, B., Lee, I.-D. et al. (1997). Effects of food and sucralfate on a single oral dose of 500 milligrams of levofloxacin in healthy subjects. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 41, 2196–200.[Abstract]

11 . Firsov, A. A., Shevchenko, A. A., Vostrov, S. N. et al. (1998). Inter- and intraquinolone predictors of antimicrobial effect in an in vitro dynamic model: new insight into a widely used concept. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 42, 659–65.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

12 . Firsov, A. A, Savarino, D., Ruble, M. et al. (1996). Predictors of effect of ampicillin-sulbactam against TEM-1 ß-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli in an in vitro dynamic model: enzyme activity versus MIC. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 40, 734–8.[Abstract]

13 . Firsov, A. A., Lubenko, I. Y., Vostrov, S. N. et al. (2000). Comparative pharmacodynamics of moxifloxacin and levofloxacin in an in vitro dynamic model: prediction of the equivalent AUC/MIC breakpoints and equiefficient doses. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 46, 725–32.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

14 . Gustavson, L., Hosmane, B., Schweitzer, S. et al. (2003). Pharmacokinetics and safety of multiple oral doses of ABT492. In Programs and Abstracts of the Forty-third Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, San-Diego, CA, 2003. Abstract A16, p. 4. American Society for Microbiology. Washington, DC, USA.

15 . Gustavson, L., Schweitzer, S., Hosmane, B. et al. (2003). Pharmacokinetics of oral ABT-492 are similar in male and female subjects. In Programs and Abstracts of the Forty-third Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, San-Diego, CA, 2003. Abstract A17, p. 4. American Society for Microbiology. Washington, DC, USA.

16 . Firsov, A. A., Zinner, S. H., Vostrov, S. N. et al. (2002). AUC/MIC relationships to different endpoints of the antimicrobial effect: multiple-dose in vitro simulations with moxifloxacin and levofloxacin. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 50, 533–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

17 . Fish, D. N. & Chow, A. T. (1997). The clinical pharmacokinetics of levofloxacin. Clinical Pharmacokinetics 32, 101–19.[ISI][Medline]

18 . Rubinstein, E., Diamantstein, L., Yoseph, G. et al. (2000). The effect of albumin globulin, pus and dead bacteria in aerobic and anaerobic conditions on the antibacterial activity of moxifloxacin, trovafloxacin and ciprofloxacin against Streptococcus pneumoniae, Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli. Clinical Microbiology and Infection 6, 678–81.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

19 . Ernst, E. J., Klepser, M. E., Petzold, C. R. et al. (2002). Evaluation of survival and pharmacodynamic relationships for five fluoroquinolones in a neutropenic murine model of pneumococcal lung infection. Pharmacotherapy 22, 467–70.





This Article
Abstract
FREE Full Text (PDF)
All Versions of this Article:
54/1/178    most recent
dkh242v1
Alert me when this article is cited
Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Email this article to a friend
Similar articles in this journal
Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Similar articles in PubMed
Alert me to new issues of the journal
Add to My Personal Archive
Download to citation manager
Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (3)
Disclaimer
Request Permissions
Google Scholar
Articles by Firsov, A. A.
Articles by Zinner, S. H.
PubMed
PubMed Citation
Articles by Firsov, A. A.
Articles by Zinner, S. H.