Animal models as predictors of the safety and efficacy of antibiotics

  • O. Zak
  • T. O'Reilly
Article

Abstract

As opposed to the testing of safety, the testing of the efficacy of antibiotics in animals is not specified in any directives or guidelines and not explicitly required by regulatory authorities. There exists, however, no doubt that in the evaluation of new compounds testing of both safety and efficacy forms an essential link between in vitro tests and clinical trials. It is inconceivable that clinicians would be prepared to conduct a trial in patients without evidence of the efficacy of the antibiotic in question in an appropriate animal model of infection. Both the models for testing safety and those for testing efficacy suffer from a number of shortcomings. If investigators are aware of these deficiencies and take them into account when interpreting the results, the predictive value of the models can be significantly enhanced.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Domagk G: Ein Beitrag zur Chemotherapie der bakteriellen Infektionen. Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift 1935, 61: 250–253.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chain E, Florey HW, Gardner AD, Heatley NG, Jennings MA, Orr-Ewing J, Sanders AG: Penicillin as a chemotherapeutic agent. Lancet 1940, 239: 226–228.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Abraham EP: Fleming's discovery. Reviews of Infectious Diseases 1980, 2: 140–141.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zak O, Sande MA (ed): Experimental models in antimicrobial chemotherapy. Volumes 1–3. Academic Press, London, 1986.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Miller AK: In vivo evaluation of antibacterial chemotherapeutic substances. Advances in Applied Microbiology 1971, 14: 151–183.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    O'Grady F: Animal models in the assessment of antimicrobial agents. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 1976, 2: 1–3.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Barza M: A critique of animal models in antibiotic research. Scandinavian Journal of Infectious Diseases 1978, 14, Supplement: 109–117.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bergeron MG: A review of models for the therapy of experimental infections. Scandinavian Journal of Infectious Diseases 1978, 14, Supplement: 189:206.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zak O: Scope and limitations of experimental chemotherapy. Experientia 1980, 36: 479–483.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zak O: Usefulness and limitations of animal models in the study of opportunistic nonbacterial infections. In: Klastersky J (ed): Infections in cancer patients. Raven Press, New York, 1982, p. 24–45.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    US Food and Drug Administration: Nonclinical laboratory practice regulations. Federal Register 1978, 43: 59986–60025. US Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Washington, DC, 1978.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bruhin H: Principles of animal care. In: Zak O, Sande MA (ed): Experimental models in antimicrobial chemotherapy. Volume 1, Academic Press, London, 1986, p. 7–18.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schweizerische Akademie der Wissenschaften und Schweizerische Naturforschende Gesellschaft: Ethische Grundsätze und Richtlinien für wissenschaftliche Tierversuche. Schweizerische Ärztezeitung/Bulletin des Médecins Suisses 1983, 64: 943–946.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Council of Europe: European convention for the protection of vertebrate animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes. European Treaty Series No. 123. Council of Europe, Strasbourg, 1986, p. 1–51.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Commission of the European Communities: Commission directive of 18 November 1987, Part B. Methods for the determination of toxicity. Official Journal of the European Communities, 30 May 1988, p. 4–87.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development: OECD guidelines for testing of chemicals, Section 4. Health effects. OECD, Paris, 1987.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wachsmuth ED, Thomann P: Testing for renal tolerability: cefsulodin in rats and rabbits. In: Bach PH, Bonner FW, Bridges JW, Lock EA (ed): Nephrotoxicity: assessment and pathogenesis. John Wiley, Chichester, 1982, p. 498–503.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zak O: Experimental bacterial osteomyelitis in the evaluation of antibiotics. In: Ishigami J (ed): Recent advances in chemotherapy. University of Tokyo Press, 1985, p. 80–82.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    World Health Organization, Regional Office for Europe: Guidelines for the clinical investigation of antibacterial drugs 2. Preclinical testing. Revised draft. Copenhagen, June 1986, p. 3.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zak O, Sande MA: Introduction: the role of animal models in the evaluation of new antibiotics. In: Zak O, Sande MA (ed): Experimental models in antimicrobial chemotherapy. Volume 1. Academic Press, London, 1986, p. 1–5.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nishino T, Zak O: Systemic infection in mice: a first-line screening model in the evaluation of new antibiotics. In: Ishigami J (ed): Recent advances in chemotherapy. University of Tokyo Press, 1955, p. 72–74.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hajdu R, Hayase K, Sundelof J, Kropp H, Kahan F: Cilastatin-sensitive lactamase active on carbapenem and penem antibiotics in the lung of rodents. In: Ishigami J (ed): Recent advances in chemotherapy. University of Tokyo Press, 1985, p. 1211–1212.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Goble, FC, Konopka EA: Sex as a factor in infectious diseases. Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences (Series II) 1973, 35: 325–346.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Harter DH, Petersdorf RG: A consideration of the pathogenesis of bacterial meningitis: review of experimental and clinical studies. Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine 1960, 32: 280–309.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Scheld WM: Experimental animal models of meningitis. In: Zak O, Sande MA (ed): Experimental models in antimicrobial chemotherapy. Volume 1. Academic Press, London, 1986, p. 139–186.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Norrby R: A review of penetration of antibiotics into CSF and its clinical significance. Scandinavian Journal of Infectious Diseases 1978, 14, Supplement: 296–309.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sande MA: Factors influencing the penetration and activity of antibiotics in experimental meningitis. Journal of Infection 1981, 3, Supplement 1: 33–38.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Scheld WM: Evaluation of new antibiotics with experimental models of bacterial meningitis. In: Ishigami J (ed): Recent advances in chemotherapy. University of Tokyo Press, 1985, p. 83–86.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Nolan CM, Ulmer WC: Penetration of cefotaxime and moxalactam into cerebrospinal fluid of rabbits with experimentally inducedEscherichia coli meningitis. Reviews of Infectious Diseases 1982, Supplement: 396–400.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ernst JD, Sande MA: Selected examples of failure of in vitro testing to predict in vivo response to antibiotics. In: Sabath LD (ed): Action of antibiotics in patients. Hans Huber, Bern, 1982, p. 68–73.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zak O, Sande MA: Correlation of in vitro antimicrobial activity of antibiotics with results of treatment in experimental animal models and human infection. In: Sabath LD (ed): Action of antibiotics in patients. Hans Huber, Bern, 1982, p. 55–67.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Scheld WM, Sande MA: Bactericidal versus bacteriostatic antibiotic therapy of experimental pneumococcal meningitis in rabbits. Journal of Clinical Investigation 1983, 71: 411–419.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Scheld WM, Täuber MG, Zak O, Sande MA: The influence of dosing schedules and cerebrospinal fluid bactericial activity on the therapy of bacterial meningitis. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 1985, 15, Supplement A: 303–312.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lebel MH, Hoyt MJ, McCracken GH: Comparative efficacy of ceftizoxime and cefuroxime for treatment of bacterial meningitis. Journal of Pediatrics 1989, 114: 1049–1054.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Täuber MG, Khayam-Bashi H, Sande MA: Effects of ampicillin and corticosteroids on brain water content, cerebrospinal fluid pressure, and cerebrospinal fluid lactate levels in experimental pneumococcal meningitis. Journal of Infectious Diseases 1985, 151: 528–534.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Syrogiannopoulos GA, Olson KD, Reisch JS, McCracken GH: Dexamethasone in the treatment of experimentalHaemophilus influenzae type b meningitis. Journal of Infectious Diseases 1987, 155: 213–219.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kadurugamuwa JL, Hengstler B, Zak O: Effects of antiinflammatory drugs on arachidonic acid metabolites and cerebrospinal fluid proteins during infectious pneumococcal meningitis in rabbits. Pediatric Infectious Diseases Journal 1987, 6: 1153–1154.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Tuomanen E, Hengstler B, Rich R, Bray MA, Zak O, Tomasz A: Nonsteroidal antiinflammatory agents in the therapy of experimental pneumococcal meningitis. Journal of Infectious Diseases 1987, 155: 985–990.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kadurugamuwa JL, Hengstler B, Zak O: Cerebrospinal fluid protein profile in experimental pneumococcal meningitis and its alteration by ampicillin and anti-inflammatory agents. Journal of Infectious Diseases 1989, 159: 26–34.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Norden CW: Experimental osteomyelitis. I: A description of the model. Journal of Infectious Diseases 1970, 122: 410–418.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Zak O, Zak F, Rich F, Tosch W, Kradolfer F, Scheld WM: Experimental staphylococcal osteomyelitis in rats: Therapy with rifampin and cloxacillin, alone or in combination. In: Periti P, Grassi GG (ed): Current chemotherapy and immunotherapy. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, 1982, p. 973–974.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Deysine M, Rosario E, Isenberg H: Acute hematogenous osteomyelitis: an experimental model. Surgery 1976, 79: 97–99.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Mader JT, Wilson KJ: Models of osteomyelitis. In: Zak O, Sande MA (ed): Experimental models in antimicrobial chemotherapy. Volume 2. Academic Press, London, 1986, p. 155–173.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Norden CW: Lessons learned from animal models of osteomyelitis. Reviews of Infectious Diseases 1988, 10: 103–110.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Zak O, Zak F, Scheld WM: Efficacy of rifampicin combined with cloxacillin in experimental chronic staphylococcal osteomyelitis in rats. In: Spitzy KH, Karrer K (ed): Proceedings of the 13th International Congress of Chemotherapy. Vienna, 1983, PS 4.6/6, p. 111/12–111/15.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Norden CW: Experimental chronic staphylococcal osteomyelitis in rabbits: treatment with rifampin alone and in combination with other antimicrobial agents. Reviews of Infectious Diseases 1983, 5, Supplement 3: 491–494.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Norden CW, Fierer J, Bryant RE: Chronic staphylococcal osteomyelitis: treatment with regimens containing rifampin. Reviews of Infectious Diseases 1983, 5, Supplement 3: 495–501.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Waldvogel FA, Vasey H: Osteomyelitis: the past decade. New England Journal of Medicine 1980, 99: 569–571.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Maurer M, Kradolfer F: Chemotherapy with bicozamycin in piglets with acute enterotoxigenicEscherichia coli diarrhea. In: Periti P, Grassi GG (ed): Current chemotherapy and immunotherapy. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, 1982, p. 260–261.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Ericsson CD, Du Pont HL, Sullivan P, Galdindo E, Evans DG, Evans DJ: Bicozamycin, a poorly absorbable antibiotic, effectively treats travelers' diarrhea. Annals of Internal Medicine 1983, 98: 20–25.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn Verlagsgesellschaft mbH 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • O. Zak
    • 1
  • T. O'Reilly
    • 1
  1. 1.Research Department, Pharmaceuticals DivisionCiba-Geigy LtdBaselSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations