Drugs & Aging

, Volume 24, Issue 4, pp 275–292 | Cite as

Use of Pharmacodynamic Principles to Optimise Dosage Regimens for Antibacterial Agents in the Elderly

Leading Article

Abstract

Throughout most of the world we are witnessing an ever increasing number of aged people as a percentage of the general population. In the coming years, the unique spectrum of infections presented by an elderly population, particularly those in long-term care facilities, will challenge our ability to maintain an effective battery of antibacterials. The pharmacokinetic parameters of most antibacterial agents are altered when assessed in the elderly due in part to non-pathological physiological changes. The inability to clear a drug from the body due to declining lung, kidney/bladder, gastrointestinal and circulatory efficiency can cause accumulation in the body of drugs given in standard dosages. While this may have the potential benefit of achieving therapeutic concentrations at a lower dose, there is also a heightened risk of attaining toxic drug concentrations and an increased chance of unfavourable interactions with other medications. Pharmacodynamic issues in the elderly are related to problems that arise from treating elderly patients who may have a history of previous antibacterial treatment and exposure to resistant organisms from multiple hospitalisations. Furthermore, the elderly often acquire infections in tandem with other common disease states such as diabetes mellitus and heart disease. Thus, it is essential that optimised dosage strategies be designed specifically for this population using pharmacodynamic principles that take into account the unique circumstances of the elderly. Rational and effective dosage and administration strategies based on pharmacodynamic breakpoints and detailed understanding of the pharmacokinetics of antibacterials in the elderly increase the chances of achieving complete eradication of an infection in a timely manner. In addition, this strategy helps prevent selection of drug-resistant bacteria and minimises the toxic effects of antibacterial therapy in the elderly patient.

References

  1. 1.
    Lindeman RD, Tobin J, Shock NW. Longitudinal studies on the rate of decline in renal function with age. J Am Geriatr Soc 1985 Apr; 33(4): 278–85PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chutka DS, Evans JM, Fleming KC, et al. Drug prescribing for elderly patients. Mayo Clin Proc 1995; 70(7): 685–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Strausbaugh LJ, Sukumar SR, Joseph CL. Infectious disease outbreaks in nursing homes: an unappreciated hazard for frail elderly persons. Aging Infect Dis 2003; 36: 870–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Engelhart ST, Hanses-Derendorf L, Exner M, et al. Prospective surveillance for healthcare-associated infections in German nursing home residents. J Hosp Infect 2005; 60: 46–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gavazzi G, Krause K-H. Ageing and infection. Lancet Infect Dis 2002 Nov; (2): 659–66Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wang CY, Jerng JS, Cheng KY, et al. Pandrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa among hospitalized patients: clinical features, risk factors and outcomes. Eur Soc Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2006; 12: 63–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rosenthal VD, Maki DG, Salomao R, et al. Device-associated nosocomial infections in 55 intensive care units of 8 developing countries. Ann Intern Med 2006, 92Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Curtin J, Cormican M, Fleming G, et al. Linezolid compared with eperezolid, vancomycin, and gentamicin in an in vitro model of antimicrobial lock therapy for Staphylococcus epidermidis central venous catheter-related biofilm infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2003 Oct; 47(10): 3145–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Edmiston CE Jr, Goheen MP, Seabrook GR, et al. Impact of selective antimicrobial agents on staphylococcal adherence to biomedical devices. Am J Surg 2006 Sep; 192(3): 344–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Greene CM, Kyaw MH, Ray SM, et al. Preventability of invasive pneumococcal disease and assessment of current polysaccharide vaccine recommendations for adults: United States, 2001–2003. Clin Infect Dis 2006; 43: 141–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    McBean AM, Jung K, Hebert PL. Decreasing invasive pneumococcal disease in the elderly: a state level analysis. Vaccine 2006; 24: 5609–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kyaw MH, Lynfield R, Schaffner W, et al. Effect of introduction of the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine on drug resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae. N Engl J Med 2006; 354(14): 1455–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stalam M, Kaye D. Antibiotic agents in the elderly. Infect Dis Clin North Am 2004; 18: 533–49PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    O’Donnell JA, Hofmann MT. How to manage nursing home patients with or without chronic catheterization. Infect Dis 2002; 57(5): 45–8Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ferrara AM, Fietta AM. New developments in antibacterial choice for lower respiratory tract infections in elderly patients. Drugs Aging 2004; 21(3): 167–86PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nerella S, Meyer KC. Drug treatment of pneumococcal pneumonia in the elderly. Therapy Pract 2004; 21(13): 851–64Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Flamminger A, Maibach H. Drug dosage in the elderly: dermatologic drugs. Drugs Aging 2006; 23(3): 203–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wright RM, Warpula RW. Geriatric pharmacology: safer prescribing for the elderly patient. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 2004; 94(2): 90–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Noreddin AM, Marras TK, Sanders K, et al. Pharmacodynamic target attainment analysis against Streptococcus pneumoniae using levofloxacin 500mg, 750mg and 1000mg once daily in plasma (P) and epithelial lining fluid (ELF) of hospitalized patients with community acquired pneumonia (CAP). Int J Antimicrob Agents 2004; 24: 479–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Noreddin AM, Hoban DJ, Zhanel GG. Comparison of gatifloxacin and levofloxacin administered at various dosing regimens to hospitalized patients with community-acquired pneumonia: pharmacodynamic target attainment study using North American surveillance data for Streptococcus pneumoniae. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2005; 26: 120–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schmucker DL. Liver function and phase I drug metabolism in the elderly. Drugs Aging 2001; 18(11): 837–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pea F, Viale P, Furlanut M. Antimicrobial therapy in critically ill patients. Clin Pharmacokinet 2005; 44(10): 1009–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wyatt CM, Kim MC, Winston JA. Therapy insight: how changes in renal function with increasing age affect cardiovascular drug prescribing. Nat Clin Pract 2005; 3(2): 102–9Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Trotman RL, Williamson JC, Shoemaker DM, et al. Antibiotic dosing in critically ill adult patients receiving continuous renal replacement therapy. Clin Infect Dis 2005; 51: 1159–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zhanel GG, Noreddin AM. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics (PK/PD) of quinolones: maximizing bacterial eradication and preventing resistance. Res Adv Antimicrob Agents Chem 2004; 4: 39–67Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mouton JW, Dudley MN, Cars O, et al. Standardization of pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) terminology for anti-infective drugs: an update. J Antimicrob Chem 2005; 55: 601–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Craig WA, Bhavnani SM, Ambrose PG. The inoculum effect: fact or artifact? Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2004; 50: 229–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Noreddin AM, Haynes VL, Zhanel GG. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the new quinolones. J Pharm Pract 2005; 18(6): 1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Preston SL, Drusano GL, Berman AL, et al. Pharmacodynamics of levofloxacin: a new paradigm for early clinical trials [see comments]. JAMA 1998; 279(2): 125–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tran JQ, Ballow CH, Forrest A, et al. Comparison of the abilities of grepafloxacin and clarithromycin to eradicate potential bacterial pathogens from the sputa of patients with chronic bronchitis: influence of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic variables. J Antimicrob Chem 2000; 45: 9–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    MacGowan AP, Bowker KE, Wootton M, et al. Activity of moxifloxacin, administered once a day, against Streptococcus pneumoniae in an in vitro pharmacodynamic model of infection. Antimicrob Agents Chem 1999; 43(7): 1560–4Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hershberger E, Rybak MJ. Activities of trovafloxacin, gatifloxacin, clinafloxacin, sparfloxacin, levofloxacin, and ciproflox-acin against penicillin-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae in an in vitro infection model. Antimicrob Agents Chem 2000; 44(3): 598–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Thomas JK, Forrest A, Bhavnani SM, et al. Pharmacodynamic evaluation of factors associated with the development of bacterial resistance in acutely ill patients during therapy. Antimicrob Agents Chem 1998; 42(3): 521–7Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lacy MK, Lu W, Xu X, et al. Pharmacodynamic comparisons of levofloxacin, ciprofloxacin, and ampicillin against Streptococcus pneumoniae in an in vitro model of infection. Antimicrob Agents Chem 1999; 43(3): 672–7Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Park-Wylie LY, Juurlink DN, Kopp A, et al. Outpatient gatifloxacin therapy and dysglycemia in older adults. N Engl J Med 2006; 354: 1352–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Park-Wyllie L, Shah BR, Juurlink DN. Correspondence. N Engl J Med 2006; 354: 2725–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ambrose PG, Bhavnani SM, Cirincione B, et al. Gatifloxacin and the elderly: pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic rationale for a potential age-related dose reduction. J Antimicrob Chem 2003; 52: 435–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Yamada C, Nagashima K, Takahashi A, et al. Gatifloxacin acutely stimulates insulin secretion and chronically suppresses insulin biosynthesis. Eur J Pharmacol 2006 Dec 28; 553(1–3): 67–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Forrest A, Nix DE, Ballow CH, et al. Pharmacodynamics of intravenous ciprofloxacin in seriously ill patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1993; 37: 1073–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lee SY, Kuti J, Nicolau D. Antimicrobial management of complicated skin and skin structure infections in the era of emerging resistance. Surg Infect 2005; 6(3): 286–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Itani KMF, Weigelt J, Li JZ, et al. Linezolid reduces length of stay and duration of intravenous treatment compared with vancomycin for complicated skin and soft tissue infections due to suspected or proven methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Int J Antimicrob Agents 2005; 26: 442–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Niederman M. Principles of appropriate antibiotic use. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2005; 26Suppl. 3: S170–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    DeRyke CA, Lee SY, Kuti JL, et al. Optimizing dosing strategies of antibacterials utilizing pharmacodynamic principles: impact on the development of resistance. Drugs 2006; 66(1): 1–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Moore RD, Lietman PS, Smith CR. Clinical response to aminoglycoside therapy: importance of the ratio of peak concentration to minimal inhibitory concentration. J Infect Dis 1987 Jan; 155(1): 93–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Begg EJ. Individualized drug and dose: the clinical pharmacologist’s calling or curse? Exp Pharmacol Physiol 2005; 32: 975–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Kirkpatrick CMJ, Begg EJ. Aminoglycoside dosage regimens after therapeutic drug monitoring. Clin Pharmacokinet 2002; 41(10): 791–2PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Hutschala D, Skhirtladze K, Zuckermann A, et al. In vivo measurement of levofloxacin penetration into lung tissue after cardiac surgery. Antimicrob Agents Chem 2005; 49(12): 5107–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Capitano B, Mattoes HM, Shore E, et al. Steady state intrapulmonary concentrations of moxifloxacin, levofloxacin and azithromycin in older adults. Chest 2005; 125: 965–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Xuan D, Nicolau DP, Nightingale CH. Population pharmacokinetics of gentamicin in hospitalized patients receiving once-daily dosing. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2004; 23: 291–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Kashuba ADM, Nafziger AN, Drusano GL, et al. Optimizing aminoglycoside therapy for nosocomial pneumonia caused by gram-negative bacteria. Antimicrob Agents Chem 1999; 43(3): 623–9Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Paterson DL, Robson JMB, Wagener MM, et al. Risk factors for toxicity in elderly patients given aminoglycosides once daily. J Geriatr Intern Med 1998; 13: 735–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Rybak MJ, Abate BJ, Kang L, et al. Prospective evaluation of the effect of an aminoglycoside dosing regimen on rates of observed nephrotoxicity and ototoxicity. Antimicrob Agents Chem 1999; 43(7): 1549–55Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Mohanty S, Kapil A, Dhawan B, et al. Bacteriological and antimicrobial susceptibility profile of soft tissue infections from Northern India. Indian J Med Sci 2004; 58(1): 10–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Kasiakou SK, Lawrence KR, Choulis N, et al. Continuous versus intermittent intravenous administration of antibacterials with time-dependent action: a systematic review of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic parameters. Drugs 2005; 65(17): 2499–511PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Lau WK, Mercer D, Itani KM, et al. Randomized, open-label, comparative study of piperacillin-tazobactam administered by continuous infusion versus intermittent infusion for treatment of hospitalized patients with complicated intra-abdominal infection. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2006 Nov; 50(11): 3556–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Noreddin AM, Roberts D, Nichol K, et al. Pharmacodynamic modeling of clarithromycin against macrolide-resistant [PCR-positive mef(A) or erm(B)] Streptococcus pneumoniae simulating clinically achievable serum and epithelial lining fluid free-drug concentrations. Antimicrob Agents Chem 2002; 46(12): 4029–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Blumer JL. Evolution of a new drug formulation: the rationale for high dose, short course therapy with azithromycin. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2005; 26Suppl. 3: S143–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Liu P, Allaudeen H, Chandra R, et al. Comparative pharmacokinetics of azithromycin in serum and white blood cells of healthy subjects receiving a single-dose extended-release regimen versus a 3-day immediate-release regimen. Antimicrob Agents Chemothe 2007 Jan; 51(1): 103–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Moussaoui R, de Borgie CAJM, van den Broek P, et al. Effectiveness of discontinuing antibiotic treatment after three days versus eight days in mild to moderate-severe community acquired pneumonia: randomized, double blind study. BMJ 2006; 332: 1355–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Katchman EA, Milo G, Paul M, et al. Three-day vs longer duration of antibiotic treatment for cystitis in women: systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Med 2005; 188: 1196–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Ong CT, Dandekar PK, Sutherland C, et al. Intrapulmonary concentrations of telithromycin: clinical implications for respiratory tract infections due to Streptococcus pneumoniae. Chemotherapy 2005; 51: 339–46PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Nguyen M, Chung EP. Telithromycin: the first ketolide antimicrobial. Clin Ther 2005; 27(8): 1144–63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Greer N. Tigecycline (Tygacil): the first in the glycylcycline class of antibiotics. Proc (Baylor Univ Med Cent) 2006; 19: 155–61Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Stahlmann R, Lode H. Fluoroquinolones in the elderly. Drugs Aging 2004; 20(4): 289–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Wright DH, Brown GH, Peterson ML, et al. Application of fluoroquinolone pharmacodynamics. J Antimicrob Chem 2000; 46: 669–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Navarro AS, Gandarillas C-I, Lerma FA, et al. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of levofloxacin in intensive care patients. Clin Pharmacokinet 2005; 44(6): 627–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Cappelletty DM, Zervos M. Levofloxacin use in the elderly: focus on pneumonia. Aging Health 2006; 2(3): 371–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Jumbe N, Louie A, Leary R, et al. Application of a mathematical model to prevent in vivo amplification of antibiotic-resistant bacterial populations during therapy. J Clin Invest 2003; 112: 275–85PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Jumbe NL, Louie A, Miller MH, et al. Quinolone efflux pumps play a central role in emergence of fluoroquinolone resistance in Streptococcus pneumoniae. Antimicrob Agents Chem 2006; 50(1): 310–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Tarn VH, Louie A, Deziel MR, et al. Bacterial population responses to drug-selective pressure: examination of garenoxacin’s effect on Pseudomonas aeruginosa. J Infect Dis 2005; 192: 420–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Bhavani SM, Hammel JP, Jones RN, et al. Relationship between increased levofloxacin use and decreased susceptibility of Streptococcus pneumoniae in the United States. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2005; 51: 31–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Owens RC Jr, Ambrose PG. Antimicrobial safety: focus on fluoroquinolones. Clin Infect Dis 2005; 41: S144–57PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Morganroth J, DiMarco JP, Anzueto A, et al. A randomized trial comparing the cardiac rhythm safety of moxifloxacin vs levofloxacin in elderly patients hospitalized with community acquired pneumonia. Chest 2005; 128: 3398–406PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Tsikouris JP, Peeters MJ, Cox CD, et al. Effects of three fluoroquinolones on QT analysis after standard treatment courses. Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol 2006; 11(1): 52–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Waterer GW, Kessler LA, Wunderink RG. Delayed administration of antibiotics and atypical presentation in community-acquired pneumonia. Chest 2006; 130: 11–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Carcas AJ, García-Satué JL, Zapater P, et al. Tobramycin penetration into epithelial lining fluid of patients with pneumonia. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1999; 65: 245–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Khaliq Y, Zhanel G. Fluoroquinolone-associated tendinopathy: a critical review of the literature. Clin Infect Dis 2003; 36: 1404–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Shams WE, Evans ME. Guide to selection of fluoroquinolones in patients with lower respiratory tract infections. Drugs 2005; 65(7): 949PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Cohen AE, Lautenbach E, Morales KH, et al. Fluoroquinolone-resistant Escherichia coli in the long-term care setting. Am J Med 2006; 119: 958–63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Stass H, Kubitza D. Profile of moxifloxacin drug interactions. Clin Infect Dis 2001; 32Suppl. 1: S47–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Gregg CR. Drug interactions and anti-infective therapies. Am J Med 1999; 106(2): 227–37PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Singer MI, Shapiro LE, Shear NH. Cytochrome P-450 3A: interactions with dermatologic therapies. J Am Acad Dermatol 1997; 37(5): 765–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Chu SY, Wilson DS, Guay DR, et al. Clarithromycin pharmacokinetics in healthy young and elderly volunteers. J Clin Pharmacol 1992 Nov; 32(11): 1045–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Chu SY, Granneman GR, Pichotta PJ, et al. Effect of moderate or severe hepatic impairment on clarithromycin pharmacokinetics. J Clin Pharmacol 1993; 33: 480–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Hung IFN, Wu AKL, Cheng VCC, et al. Fatal interaction between clarithromycin and colchicine in patients with renal insufficiency: a retrospective study. Clin Infect Dis 2005; 41: 291–300PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Clay KD, Hanson JS, Pope SD, et al. Brief communication: severe hepatotoxicity of telithromycin: three case reports and literature review. Ann Intern Med 2006; 144: 415–20PubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Meagher AK, Ambrose PG, Grasela TH, et al. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic profile for tigecycline: a new glycylcycline antimicrobial agent. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2005; 52: 165–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Bryan CS, Talwani R, Stinson S. Penicillin dosing for pneumococcal pneumonia. Chest 1997; 112: 1657–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Zhanel GG, Johanson C, Embil JM, et al. Ertapenem: review of a new carbapenem. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther 2005; 3(1): 23–39PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Musson DG, Majumdar A, Holland S, et al. Pharmacokinetics of total and unbound ertapenem in healthy elderly subjects. Antimicrob Agents Chem 2004 Feb; 48(2): 521–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Hellinger WC, Brewer NS. Carbapenems and monobactams: imipenem, meropenem and aztreonam. Mayo Clin Proc 1999; 74(4): 420–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Skhirtladze K, Hutschala D, Fleck T, et al. Impaired target site penetration of vancomycin in diabetic patients following cardiac surgery. Antimicrob Agents Chem 2006; 50(4): 1372–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    French G. Safety and tolerability of linezolid. J Antimicrob Chem 2003; 51Suppl. S2: ii45–53Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Brier ME, Stalker DJ, Aronoff GR, et al. Pharmacokinetics of linezolid in subjects with renal dysfunction. Antimicrob Agents Chem 2003 Sept; 47(9): 2775–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Corallo C, Pauli AE. Linezolid-induced neuropathy [letter]. Med J Aust 2002; 177(6): 332PubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Huang V, Gortney JS. Risk of serotonin syndrome with concomitant administration of linezolid and serotonin agonists. Pharmacotherapy 2006; 26(12): 1784–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    McKee EE, Ferguson M, Bentley AT, et al. Inhibition of mammalian mitochondrial protein synthesis by oxazolidinones. Antimicrob Agents Chem 2006 Jun; 50(6): 2042–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    DeVriese AS, Van Coster R, Smet J, et al. Linezolid-induced inhibition of mitochondrial protein synthesis. Clin Infect Dis 2006; 42: 1111–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Panidis D, Markantonis SL, Boutzouka E, et al. Penetration of gentamicin into the alveolar lining fluid of critically ill patients with ventilator-associated pneumonia. Chest 2005 Aug; 128: 545–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Joukhadar C, Stass H, Müller-Zellenberg U, et al. Penetration of moxifloxacin into healthy and inflamed subcutaneous adipose tissues in humans. Antimicrob Agents Chem 2003 Oct; 47(10): 3099–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Bellman R, Kuchling G, Dehghanyar P, et al. Tissue pharmacokinetics of levofloxacin in human soft tissue infections. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2004; 57(5): 563–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Wagenlehner FME, Kinzig-Schippers M, Tischmeyer U, et al. Pharmacokinetics of ciprofloxacin XR (1000mg) versus levofloxacin (500mg) in plasma and urine of male and female healthy volunteers receiving a single oral dose. Antimicrob Agents 2006; 27: 7–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Patel KB, Xuan D, Tessier PR, et al. Comparison of bronchopulmonary pharmacokinetics of clarithromycin and azithromycin. Antimicrob Agents Chem 1996 Oct; 40(10): 2375–9Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Kuehnel TS, Schurr C, Lotter K, et al. Penetration of telithromycin into the nasal mucosa and ethmoid bone of patients undergoing rhinosurgery for chronic sinusitis. J Antimicrob Chem 2005; 55: 591–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Zhanel GG, Johanson C, Hisanaga T, et al. Pharmacodynamic activity of telithromycin against macrolide-susceptible and macrolide-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae simulating clinically achievable free serum and epithelial lining fluid concentrations. J Antimicrob Chem 2004; 54: 1072–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Conte JE Jr, Golden JA, Kelly MG, et al. Steady-state serum and intrapulmonary pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of tigecycline. Antimicrob Agents 2005; 25: 523–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Wise R, Honeybourne D. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of fluoroquinolones in the respiratory tract [published erratum appears in Eur Respir J 1999 Nov; 14 (5): 1239]. Eur Respir J 1999 Jul; 14(1): 221–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Tomaselli F, Dittrich P, Maier A, et al. Penetration of piperacillin and tazobactam into pneumonic human lung tissue measured by in vivo microdialysis. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2003; 55: 620–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Legat FJ, Krause R, Zenahlik P, et al. Penetration of piperacillin and tazobactam into inflamed soft tissue of patients with diabetic foot infection. Antimicrob Agents Chem 2005 Oct; 49(10): 4368–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Boselli E, Breilh D, Cannesson M, et al. Steady-state plasma and intrapulmonary concentrations of piperacillin/tazobactam 4g/0.5g administered to critically ill patients with severe nosocomial pneumonia. Intensive Care Med 2004; 30: 976–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Laethem T, De Lepeleire I, McCrea J, et al. Tissue penetration by ertapenem, a parenteral carbapenem administered once daily, in suction-induced skin blister fluid in healthy young volunteers. Antimicrob Agents Chem 2003 Apr; 47(4): 1439–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Burkhardt O, Majacher-Peszynska J, Borner K, et al. Penetration of ertapenem into different pulmonary compartments of patients undergoing lung surgery. J Clin Pharmacol 2005; 45: 659–65PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Tomaselli F, Maier A, Matzi V, et al. Penetration of meropenem into pneumonic human lung tissue as measured by in vivo microdialysis. Antimicrob Agents Chem 2004 Jun; 48(6): 2228–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Tegeder I, Schmidtko A, Brautigam L, et al. Tissue distribution of imipenem in critically ill patients. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2002; 71: 325–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Rana B, Butcher I, Grigoris P, et al. Linezolid penetration into osteo-articular tissues. J Antimicrob Chem 2002; 50: 747–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Honeybourne D, Tobin C, Jevons G, et al. Intrapulmonary penetration of linezolid. J Antimicrob Chem 2003; 51: 1431–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of PharmacyUniversity of MinnesotaDuluthUSA

Personalised recommendations