1 Center for Anti-Infective Research and Development, Hartford Hospital, 80 Seymour Street, Hartford, CT 06102, USA; 2 Division of Infectious Diseases, Hartford Hospital, Hartford, CT 06102, USA
Received 1 March 2005; returned 11 June 2005; revised 13 June 2005; accepted 25 June 2005
![]() |
Abstract |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Methods: A neutropenic murine pneumonia model was used to assess the bactericidal activity of amoxicillin and clarithromycin, when the same total daily dose was administered as a traditional regimen (every 8 h and every 12 h, respectively) or as a pulsatile regimen (four doses of antibiotic given every 2 h over the first 6 h of the day) against three isolates of Streptococcus pneumoniae of varying resistance profiles. The three isolates consisted of SP21 (macrolide and penicillin susceptible), SP100 [mef(A) gene], and SP107 [mef(A) + erm(B) genes].
Results: Pulsatile dosing showed similar reductions in bacterial density for amoxicillin and clarithromycin when either drug was given alone compared with traditional dosing regimens against all three bacterial isolates. When amoxicillin and clarithromycin were combined, improved activity was found compared with monotherapy. Overall, when comparing the different combination regimens, the pulsatile regimens provided similar activity compared with the traditional regimens. For one isolate, SP107, pulsatile amoxicillin combination regimens were less effective compared with traditionally dosed amoxicillin combination regimens.
Conclusions: Pulsatile dosing resulted in comparable bactericidal activity against the three isolates tested and may represent an alternative dosing strategy, which may help to alleviate problems with patient adherence to drug therapy.
Keywords: Streptococcus pneumoniae , pulsatile dosing , mouse model
![]() |
Introduction |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Rates of penicillin and macrolide-resistant S. pneumoniae have continued to rise at an alarming rate. Macrolide and penicillin resistance has been shown to be 30% in the USA.11 As emergence of resistance in S. pneumoniae continues to grow, new treatment options and strategies are warranted.
This study evaluated Advancis Pharmaceuticals' novel dosing strategies as they undergo formulation of a drug delivery system. These new strategies utilize pulsatile dosing, which produces short bursts of drug early in the dosing interval followed by a prolonged dose-free period, which could potentially reduce the development of resistance against the particular antimicrobial agent.12 Additionally, with the ability to control the release of drug into the body, these new dosing strategies may allow for once-daily dosing of antibiotic regimens, which could increase patient adherence to medication.
Pulsatile dosing has been shown in in vitro studies to be better or as effective as traditional dosing regimens for certain antibiotics.1214 Previously, a study was conducted utilizing an in vitro model, which assessed the efficacy of clarithromycin alone and in combination with amoxicillin against S. pneumoniae.14 The study investigators found that the clarithromycin and amoxicillin combination pulsatile regimens yielded significant bactericidal activity. Although results from in vitro studies are valuable, in vivo studies must be conducted to determine whether the effectiveness of the treatment strategies can be translated to animals and ultimately to humans. Our current study evaluated the in vivo efficacy of pulsatile dosing of amoxicillin and clarithromycin alone and in combination against S. pneumoniae in a neutropenic murine pneumonia model.
![]() |
Materials and methods |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Amoxicillin analytical grade powder (Sigma Laboratories, St Louis, MO, USA) was used for all in vitro testing. Commercially available amoxicillin for oral suspension, USP (STADA Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cranbury, NJ, USA) was used for all in vivo testing and prepared according to the package insert. Clarithromycin analytical grade powder (Abbott Laboratories, North Chicago, IL, USA) was used for all in vitro and in vivo testing. For animal dosing with clarithromycin, 95% ethanol and sterile 0.1 M phosphate buffer (pH 6.5) in a 1:10 dilution was used as the vehicle, and the clarithromycin suspension was sonicated for 30 min prior to dosing.
Three clinical isolates of S. pneumoniae were utilized in this study. One isolate was macrolide/penicillin susceptible (SP21), one isolate contained the mef(A) gene (SP100) and one isolate contained the mef(A) and erm(B) gene (SP107). All strains were stored in skimmed milk medium (Becton Dickinson, Cockeysville, MD, USA) at 80°C and subcultured twice onto Trypticase soy agar with 5% sheep blood (Becton Dickinson) before use in all in vitro and in vivo experiments.
In vitro susceptibility tests
The median MICs of amoxicillin and clarithromycin were determined for each isolate in triplicate using standard NCCLS methodology for broth microdilution.15
Lung infection model
Specific, pathogen-free, female ICR mice (25 g) were obtained from Harlan Sprague Dawley, Inc. (Indianapolis, IN, USA). Hartford Hospital's (Hartford, CT, USA) Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee reviewed and approved the methodology for use of these animals. Mice were rendered neutropenic by intraperitoneal injection of cyclophosphamide 150 mg/kg at 4 days and 100 mg/kg 1 day prior to inoculation.16 All animals were maintained and utilized in accordance with recommendations from the National Research Council and were provided food and water ad libitum.
A suspension of S. pneumoniae was prepared from the second subculture of bacteria, which was incubated for <20 h. The inoculum was then adjusted to a 3.0 McFarland turbidity standard in a 5% dextrose saline solution to 108 cfu/mL. The bacterial density of each inoculum was confirmed by serial dilution and plating of each suspension.
The animals were lightly anaesthetized with isofluorane (2% v/v in 100% oxygen carrier) until the respiratory rate was reduced upon visual inspection to one breath per second. Infection was induced by oral instillation of 0.05 mL of bacterial suspension with simultaneous blockage of the nares to cause bacterial aspiration into the lungs. Mice recovered fully in an oxygen-enriched chamber before randomization into control and treatment groups. Treatment with active drug regimens and controls began 1214 h post-inoculation (0 h dosing time).
Pharmacokinetic studies
Pharmacokinetic studies were conducted for the commercially prepared amoxicillin for oral suspension, USP product. Neutropenic ICR mice were prepared as described above for the lung infection model and infected with SP100. Single doses of amoxicillin suspension (12.5, 25 and 100 mg/kg) were administered orally to mice 1214 h after inoculation. Blood samples were collected from six to 12 mice by intracardiac puncture at 810 time points per regimen over 24 h. After blood collection, samples were centrifuged and the serum was collected and stored at 80°C until assayed. In addition, bronchial alveolar lavage (BAL) samples were obtained simultaneously to blood collection at 0.5 and 1.5 h for determination of drug levels in epithelial lining fluid (ELF). BAL samples from six mice per time point were obtained by cannulating the exposed trachea with a 22 gauge catheter and flushing with 0.4 mL of saline four times. The recovered volume of BAL fluid was centrifuged and stored at 80°C until assayed. ELF volume was calculated using the urea dilution method.17
Concentrations of amoxicillin in murine serum and BAL were determined with a validated HPLC procedure. The serum assay was linear over a range of 0.220 mg/L (r2 = 1.0). Intraday coefficients of variation for the low (0.5 mg/L) and high (15 mg/L) quality control samples were 1.78 and 3.48%, respectively. Interday coefficients of variation for the quality control samples were 2.34 and 5.11%, respectively. Pharmacokinetic analyses for the individual amoxicillin serum concentration profiles were performed using a one-compartment model (WinNonlin, version 3.3, Pharsight Corp., Mountain View, CA, USA) and a weighting scheme of 1/yhat2. Pharmacokinetic studies for total drug concentrations of clarithromycin were previously completed at our institution and were not repeated here.18
Treatment regimens
Twelve to 14 h after bacterial inoculation, groups of six mice were administered amoxicillin and clarithromycin as monotherapy or as combination therapy in a 0.2 mL volume via oral gavage. Mice receiving combination therapy received 0.2 mL of amoxicillin, followed immediately by 0.2 mL of clarithromycin. For traditional dosing, drug administration took place every 8 h for amoxicillin and every 12 h for clarithromycin. For pulsatile dosing, the same total daily dose of either amoxicillin or clarithromycin was used, but the dose was divided into four individual doses given every 2 h over the first 6 h.
This study was completed in three phases for each bacterial isolate. The first phase consisted of doseresponse experiments to discover the total daily amoxicillin dose given traditionally that would yield an 1 log decrease in bacterial density compared with the 0 h controls. The second phase involved taking this same total daily dose of amoxicillin, and two other doses, and comparing changes in bacterial density between traditional dosing and pulsatile dosing. The third phase of the study consisted of assessing differences in bactericidal activity between clarithromycin monotherapy when administered traditionally or in a pulsatile fashion. For clarithromycin, the total daily dose used was the human simulated dose (300 mg/kg) as determined from previous studies.18 In addition, efficacy of combination therapy with the amoxicillin dose producing 1 log kill and the human simulated dose of clarithromycin was assessed when given as both traditional dosing as well as pulsatile dosing.
Efficacy as assessed by bacterial density
Twelve to 14 h after the infection was established and simultaneous to initiation of dosing (0 h), control mice (six per group) were sacrificed. After 24 h of treatment, vehicle-treated controls and treatment groups were sacrificed (six per group). Animals were euthanized by CO2 inhalation followed by cervical dislocation. Lungs were aseptically removed and individually homogenized in 1 mL of normal saline. Serial dilutions were plated on Trypticase soy agar with 5% sheep blood for cfu determinations. Efficacy (change in bacterial density) was calculated by subtracting the mean log10 cfu per lung of the 0 h control mice sacrificed just prior to dosing from the mean log10 cfu per lung of untreated controls and treatment groups at the end of 24 h of therapy.
Data analysis
For efficacy assessments, a sample size calculation was applied, which considered the fact that optimal dosing regimens for typical antimicrobial agents usually produce an 23 log10 decrease in bacterial density with a %CV of 40. In order to have an observed mean that deviates from the true mean by no more than one standard deviation using a two-sided, 95% confidence interval with 80% probability, six data points are required; thus six animals were included in each group to ensure statistical viability. Change in bacterial density in lungs for amoxicillin-treated and placebo-treated control animals was reported using descriptive statistics. An inhibitory sigmoid Emax doseeffect model derived from the Hill equation was used to characterize the relationship between amoxicillin dose and efficacy. Spearman's correlation coefficient test evaluated the degree to which change in bacterial density correlated with dose.
![]() |
Results |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amoxicillin and clarithromycin were used in the following combinations: amoxicillin every 8 h plus clarithromycin every 12 h, amoxicillin pulsed dosing plus clarithromycin every 12 h, amoxicillin every 8 h plus clarithromycin pulsed dosing and amoxicillin pulsed dosing plus clarithromycin pulsed dosing. Table 4 displays the mean change in log10 cfu/lung at 24 h, as well the total drug %t > MIC exposure of amoxicillin and clarithromycin, for all dosing regimens (monotherapy and combination therapy) against the three S. pneumoniae isolates. Since neither amoxicillin nor clarithromycin are highly protein bound, 2019 and 50%,20 respectively, total drug exposure was presented here.
|
![]() |
Discussion |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
This was the first in vivo study assessing the efficacy of pulsatile dosing regimens. Several in vitro studies have been performed already with varying antimicrobial agents. Ibrahim et al.12 used an in vitro model to compare the activity of pulse-dosed metronidazole with traditional thrice-daily regimens against Bacteroides fragilis and Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron. They found bactericidal activity among the different regimens to be comparable.
Similarly Cha et al.13 used an in vitro model to compare the pharmacodynamics of amoxicillin simulated as a pulsatile dose and as traditional, multiple doses against S. pneumoniae. Overall they found bacterial density reductions between treatment regimens to be similar for the susceptible isolate they used and greater with pulsatile dosing against the less susceptible strain.
In our analysis, bactericidal activity was similar among the three traditional versus pulsatile doses for amoxicillin alone. For the susceptible isolate, SP21, %t > MIC exposure was similar for the three total daily doses tested. There was slightly less exposure at the highest total daily amoxicillin dose, but bactericidal activity was still the same between the traditional dosing and pulsatile dosing groups. For the two macrolide-resistant isolates, slightly better %t > MIC exposure was observed for the lower doses. Although reduction in bacterial density for either isolate at the lower doses was comparable, the mean change in log10 cfu/lung at the lower doses was slightly more for the pulsatile regimen against SP107. At 300 mg/kg/day of amoxicillin, %t > MIC exposure was lower in the pulsatile regimens compared with the traditional regimens. At this high dose with SP107, bactericidal activity was similar, but for SP100, there was less bacterial kill, reflecting the decrease in %t > MIC exposure at this dose.
Leuthner et al.14 used an in vitro model to compare activities of clarithromycin alone and in combination with amoxicillin when simulated as traditional dosing and pulsatile dosing. They used two isolates, one of which was susceptible to both clarithromycin and amoxicillin and another that was resistant to clarithromycin and intermediately resistant to amoxicillin. Results of the study revealed clarithromycin pulsatile dosing to be more effective in eradicating bacteria at higher doses. The investigators also found pulsed combination therapy with amoxicillin and clarithromycin to be more effective against the resistant isolate and equally efficacious against the susceptible isolate.
In our study, changes in log10 cfu/lung for clarithromycin monotherapy were similar for the traditional and pulsatile regimens against all S. pneumoniae isolates. For the amoxicillin and clarithromycin combination regimens, we found changes in bacterial density to be greater compared with clarithromycin monotherapy, which was consistent with the Leuthner study. In comparing the combination regimens with each other, bactericidal activity was similar among all combination regimens for the susceptible isolate, which is also consistent with the results of Leuthner et al. However, we did not find superior activity in vivo with the pulsed amoxicillin and pulsed clarithromycin regimen compared with the other combination regimens for the two macrolide-resistant isolates. For SP100, all combination regimens were similar with no significant differences in mean change in log10 cfu/lung. For SP107, there was variability among the different combination regimens. Regimens with amoxicillin dosed traditionally had greater kill compared with the pulsed amoxicillin regimens.
Our current in vivo study reveals the comparable bactericidal activity of pulsatile regimens compared with traditional dosing regimens of amoxicillin and clarithromycin as monotherapy and as combination therapy. Compared with the in vitro studies that have been performed to date, our in vivo results in infected neutropenic mice do not show any superior bactericidal activity with amoxicillin and clarithromycin as monotherapy or combination therapy when given as traditional versus pulsatile dosing. Since %t > MIC exposure for both amoxicillin and clarithromycin were similar among the traditional dosing groups versus the pulsatile dosing groups, one would expect the bactericidal efficacies between the two dosing schemes to be similar. Our results showed that efficacies were indeed similar among the traditional dosing groups and pulsatile dosing groups, thus indicating that exposure was the key driver to bactericidal efficacy.
While pulsatile antibiotic administration did not appear to improve bactericidal activity of either amoxicillin or clarithromycin, since it provided similar %t > MIC exposure for both agents, it did not deter from the activity provided from traditional dosing. Therefore, this technique of pulsatile dosing may allow for ease of dosing and improved patient adherence. We did not assess the ability for pulsatile administration to suppress resistance, but this issue should be examined in the future. Other additional in vivo studies are warranted to further evaluate the benefits of pulsed dosing and offer more insight into its value in clinical practice.
![]() |
Acknowledgements |
---|
![]() |
References |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
2. Azoulay-Dupuis E, Moine P, Bedos P et al. Amoxicillin dose-effect relationship with Streptococcus pneumoniae in a mouse pneumonia model and roles of in vitro penicillin susceptibilities, autolysis, and tolerance properties of the strains. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1996; 40: 9416.[Abstract]
3.
Woodnutt G, Berry V. Efficacy of high-dose amoxicillin-clavulanate against experimental respiratory tract infections caused by strains of Streptococcus pneumoniae. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1999; 43: 3540.
4. Maglio D, Capitano B, Banevicius MA et al. Efficacy of clarithromycin against Streptococcus pneumoniae expressing mef(A)-mediated resistance. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2004; 23: 498501.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
5. Maglio D, Capitano B, Banevicius MA et al. Differential efficacy of clarithromycin in lung versus thigh infection models. Chemotherapy 2004; 50: 636.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
6.
Hoffman HL, Klepser ME, Ernst EJ et al. Influence of macrolide susceptibility on efficacies of clarithromycin and azithromycin against Streptococcus pneumoniae in a murine lung infection model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2003; 47: 73946.
7. Gotfried MH, Dattani D, Riffer E et al. A controlled, double-blind, multicenter study comparing clarithromycin extended-release tablets and levofloxacin tablets in the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia. Clin Ther 2002; 24: 73651.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
8. Mandell LA, Bartlett JG, Dowell SF et al. Update of practice guidelines for the management of community-acquired pneumonia in immunocompetent adults. Clin Infect Dis 2003; 37: 140533.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
9.
Heffelfinger JD, Dowell SF, Jorgensen JH et al. Management of community-acquired pneumonia in the era of pneumococcal resistance: a report from the drug-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae therapeutic working group. Arch Intern Med 2000; 160: 13991408.
10. Martinez JA, Horcajada JP, Almela M et al. Addition of a macrolide to a ß-lactam-based empirical antibiotic regimen is associated with lower in-hospital mortality for patients with bacteremic pneumococcal pneumonia. Clin Infect Dis 2003; 36: 38995.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
11. Sun H, Maglio D, Nicolau D. Macrolide resistance in Streptococcus pneumoniae: Mechanisms, patterns, and clinical implications of resistance. Connecticut Med 2004; 68: 57176.
12.
Ibrahim KH, Gunderson BW, Hermsen ED et al. Pharmacodynamics of pulse dosing versus standard dosing: In vitro metronidazole activity against Bacteroides fragilis and Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2004; 48: 419599.
13.
Cha R, Rybak MJ. Pulsatile delivery of amoxicillin against Streptococcus pneumoniae. J Antimicrob Chemother 2004; 54: 106771.
14. Leuthner KD, Cheung CM, Rybak MJ. Pulsatile delivery of clarithromycin alone and in combination with amoxicillin against Streptococcus pneumoniae (SPN) with reduced susceptibility to these agents. In Programs and Abstracts of the Forty-forth, Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, Washington, DC, USA. Abstract A1169. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, DC, USA.
15. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. Methods for Dilution Antimicrobial Susceptibility Tests For Bacteria that Grow AerobicallyFourteenth Edition: Approved Standard. NCCLS, Wayne, PA, USA.
16. Joly-Guillou ML, Wolff M, Pocidalo JJ et al. (1997) Use of a new mouse model of Acinetobacter baumannii pneumonia to evaluate the post-antibiotic effect of imipenem. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2004; 41: 34551.
17. Conte JE, Golden JA, Duncan S et al. Intrapulmonary pharmacokinetics of clarithromycin and of erythromycin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1995; 39: 33438.[Abstract]
18.
Tessier PR, Kim M, Zhou W et al. Pharmacodynamic assessment of clarithromycin in a murine model of pneumococcal pneumonia. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2002; 46: 142534.
19. Amoxil [Prescribing Information]. Research Triangle Park, NC, USA: GlaxoSmithKline; 2004.
20. Biaxin [Prescribing Information]. North Chicago, IL, USA: Abbott Laboratories; 2003.
21. Hoban D, Waites K, Felmingham D. Antimicrobial susceptibility of community-acquired respiratory tract pathogens in North America in 19992000: findings of the PROTEKT surveillance study. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2003; 45: 2519.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]