Advertisement

PK/PD-Based Prediction of “Anti-Mutant” Antibiotic Exposures Using In Vitro Dynamic Models

  • Alexander A. Firsov
  • Yury A. Portnoy
  • Stephen H. Zinner
Chapter
Part of the Emerging Infectious Diseases of the 21st Century book series (EIDC)

Abstract

PK/PD (pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic) relationships with the emergence of bacterial resistance are a basis for designing “anti-mutant” antibiotic dosing regimens, i.e., regimens that are expected to prevent or restrict the enrichment of resistant mutant subpopulations. In vitro dynamic models provide a way to study the enrichment of resistant mutants while simulating human antibiotic pharmacokinetics. A key observation made using these models is that a bell-shaped curve is observed when the recovery of resistant mutants is plotted against AUC/MIC, an integrated measure of drug exposure. This observation strongly supports the window hypothesis, which predicts the selective enrichment of resistant mutants when antimicrobial concentrations fall between the MIC of the bulk population and the mutant prevention concentration (MPC). In most cases examined, doses used clinically place drug concentrations inside the window where mutant enrichment is observed. Reports that contradict the mutant selection window hypothesis are addressed, and flaws in the arguments are pointed out. When considering the time that antimicrobial concentrations are inside the window as a predictor of mutant enrichment, it is important to consider the position of drug concentrations inside the window, since they affect mutant subpopulation size. Plots of mutant enrichment against “time in the window” display a distinct hysteresis loop that explains previous failures to show that “time in the window” is predictive of mutant enrichment. Dynamic models are also suited for optimizing combination therapies. Overall, bacterial resistance studies with in vitro dynamic models provide a way to identify dosing conditions that are likely to severely restrict the emergence of new resistance, a feature that should be especially useful in the development of new compounds.

References

  1. 1.
    Linder KE, Nicolau DP, Nailor MD. Predicting and preventing antimicrobial resistance utilizing pharmacodynamics: part I gram positive bacteria. Expert Opin Drug Metabol Toxicol. 2016;12:267–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abdelraouf K, Linder KE, Nailor MD, Nicolau DP. Predicting and preventing antimicrobial resistance utilizing pharmacodynamics: part II gram-negative bacteria. Expert Opin Drug Metabol Toxicol, 2017; doi:  https://doi.org/10.1080/17425255.2017.1329417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zhao X, Drlica K. Restricting the selection of antibiotic-resistant mutants: a general strategy derived from fluoroquinolone studies. Clin Infect Dis. 2001;33:147–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blondeau JM, Zhao X, Hansen G, Drlica K. Mutant prevention concentrations of fluoroquinolones for clinical isolates of Streptococcus pneumoniae. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2001;45:433–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Firsov AA, Zinner SH. Lubenko IY. In: Nightingale CH, Ambrose PG, Drusano GL, Murakawa T, editors. vitro dynamic models as tools to predict antibiotic pharmacodynamics, Antimicrobial pharmacodynamics in theory and clinical practice. 2nd ed. New York: Informa Healthcare USA, Inc.; 2007. p. 45–78.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lacy MK, Lu W, Xu X, Tessier PR, Nicolau DP, Quintiliani R, Nightingale CH. Pharmacodynamic comparisons of levofloxacin, ciprofloxacin, and ampicillin against Streptococcus pneumoniae in an in vitro model of infection. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1999;43:672–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Aeschlimann JR, Kaatz GW, Rybak MJ. The effects of NorA inhibition on the activities of levofloxacin, ciprofloxacin and norfloxacin against two genetically related strains of Staphylococcus aureus in an in-vitro infection model. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1999;44:343–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Peterson ML, Hovde LB, Wright DH, Hoang AD, Raddatz JK, Boysen PJ, Rotschafer JC. Fluoroquinolone resistance in Bacteroides fragilis following sparfloxacin exposure. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1999;43:2251–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Madaras-Kelly KJ, Demasters TA. In vitro characterization of fluoroquinolone concentration/MIC antimicrobial activity and resistance while simulating clinical pharmacokinetics of levofloxacin, ofloxacin, or ciprofloxacin against Streptococcus pneumoniae. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2000;37:253–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Coyle EA, Kaatz GW, Rybak MJ. Activities of newer fluoroquinolones against ciprofloxacin-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2001;45:1654–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zhanel GG, Walters M, Laing N, Hoban DJ. In vitro pharmacodynamic modelling simulating free serum concentrations of fluoroquinolones against multidrug-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2001;47:435–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Thorburn CE, Edwards DI. The effect of pharmacokinetics on the bactericidal activity of ciprofloxacin and sparfloxacin against Streptococcus pneumoniae and the emergence of resistance. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2001;48:15–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ross GH, Wright DH, Hovde LB, Peterson ML, Rotschafer JC. Fluoroquinolone resistance in anaerobic bacteria following exposure to levofloxacin, trovafloxacin, and sparfloxacin in an in vitro pharmacodynamic model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2001;45:2136–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Klepser ME, Ernst EJ, Petzold CR, Rhomberg P, Doern GV. Comparative bactericidal activities of ciprofloxacin, clinafloxacin, grepafloxacin, levofloxacin, moxifloxacin, and trovafloxacin against Streptococcus pneumoniae in a dynamic in vitro model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2001;45:673–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Peterson ML, Hovde LB, Wright DH, Brown GH, Hoang AD, Rotschafer JC. Pharmacodynamics of trovafloxacin and levofloxacin against Bacteroides fragilis in an in vitro pharmacodynamic model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2002;46:203–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wright DH, Gunderson SM, Hovde LB, Ross GH, Ibrahim AS, Rotschafer JC. Comparative pharmacodynamics of three newer fluoroquinolones versus six strains of staphylococci in an in vitro model under aerobic and anaerobic conditions. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2002;46:1561–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Firsov AA, Vostrov SN, Lubenko IY, Drlica K, Portnoy YA, Zinner SH. In vitro pharmacodynamic evaluation of the mutant selection window hypothesis using four fluoroquinolones against Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2003;47:1604–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Firsov AA, Vostrov SN, Lubenko IY, Arzamastsev AP, Portnoy YA, Zinner SH. ABT492 and levofloxacin: comparison of their pharmacodynamics and their abilities to prevent the selection of resistant Staphylococcus aureus in an in vitro dynamic model. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2004;54:178–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Liang B, Bai N, Cai Y, Wang R, Drlica K, Zhao X. Mutant prevention concentration-based pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic indices as dosing targets for suppressing the enrichment of levofloxacin-resistant subpopulations of Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2011;55:2409–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tam VH, Louie A, Deziel MR, Liu W, Leary R, Drusano GL. The relationship between quinolone exposures and resistance amplification is characterized by an inverted U: a new paradigm for optimizing pharmacodynamics to counter select resistance. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2007;51:744–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    MacGowan AP, Rogers CA, Holt HA, Bowker KE. Activities of moxifloxacin against, and emergence of resistance in, Streptococcus pneumoniae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa in an in vitro pharmacokinetic model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2003;47:1088–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zinner SH, Lubenko IY, Gilbert D, Simmons K, Zhao X, Drlica K, Firsov AA. Emergence of resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae in an in vitro dynamic model that simulates moxifloxacin concentrations inside and outside the mutant selection window: related changes in susceptibility, resistance frequency and bacterial killing. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2003;52:616–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gebru E, Choi M-J, Lee S-J, Damte D, Park SC. Mutant prevention concentration and mechanism of resistance in clinical isolates and enrofloxacin/marbofloxacin-selected mutants of Escherichia coli of canine origin. J Med Microbiol. 2011;60:1512–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Firsov AA, Strukova EN, Shlykova DS, Portnoy YA, Kozyreva VK, Edelstein MV, Dovzhenko SA, Kobrin MB, Zinner SH. Bacterial resistance studies using in vitro dynamic models: the predictive power of the mutant prevention and minimum inhibitory antibiotic concentrations. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2013;57:4956–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Firsov AA, Portnoy YA, Strukova EN, Shlykova DS, Zinner SH. Predicting bacterial resistance using the time inside the mutant selection window: possibilities and limitations. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2014;44:301–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Firsov AA, Portnoy YA, Strukova EN, Shlykova DS, Zinner SH. Bacterial antibiotic resistance studies using in vitro dynamic models: population analysis vs. susceptibility testing as endpoints of mutant enrichment. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2015;46:313–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Strukova EN, Portnoy YA, Romanov AV, Edelstein MV, Zinner SH Firsov AA. Searching for the optimal predictor of ciprofloxacin resistance in Klebsiella pneumoniae by using in vitro dynamic models. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2016;60:1208–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Strukova EN, Portnoy YA, Zinner SH, Firsov AA. Predictors of bacterial resistance using in vitro dynamic models: area under the concentration-time curve related to either the minimum inhibitory or mutant prevention antibiotic concentration. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2016;71:678–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Firsov AA, Smirnova MV, Strukova EN, Vostrov SN, Portnoy YA, Zinner SH. Enrichment of resistant Staphylococcus aureus at ciprofloxacin concentrations simulated within the mutant selection window: bolus versus continuous infusion. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2008;32:488–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Golikova MV, Strukova EN, Portnoy YA, Firsov AA. PK/PD modeling as a tool to predict bacterial resistance to antibiotics: alternative analyses of the experimental data. Antibiot Chimiother. 2015;60:11–6. rusGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Firsov AA, Smirnova MV, Lubenko IY, Vostrov SN, Portnoy YA, Zinner SH. Testing the mutant selection window hypothesis with Staphylococcus aureus exposed to daptomycin and vancomycin in an in vitro dynamic model. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2006;58:1185–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Smirnova MV, Vostrov SN, Strukova EN, Dovzhenko SA, Kobrin MB, Portnoy YA, Zinner SH, Firsov AA. The impact of duration of antibiotic exposure on bacterial resistance predictions using in vitro dynamic models. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2009;64:815–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    VanScoy BD, McCauley J, Ellis-Grosse EJ, Okusanya OO, Bhavnani SM, Forrest A, Ambrose PG. Exploration of the pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic relationships for fosfomycin efficacy using an in vitro infection model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2015;59:7170–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Firsov AA, Alieva KN, Strukova EN, Golikova MV, Portnoy YA, Dovzhenko SA, Kobrin MB, Romanov AV, Edelstein MV, Zinner SH. Testing the mutant selection window hypothesis with Staphylococcus aureus exposed to linezolid in an in vitro dynamic model. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2017;72:3100–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Firsov AA, Golikova MV, Strukova EN, Portnoy YA, Romanov AV, Edelstein MV, Zinner SH. In vitro resistance studies with bacteria that exhibit low mutation frequencies: the prediction of “antimutant” linezolid concentrations using a mixed inoculum containing both susceptible and resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2015;59:1014–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Drlica K, Zhao X. Mutant selection window hypothesis updated. Clin Infect Dis. 2007;44:681–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Zhao X, Drlica K. A unified anti-mutant dosing strategy. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2008;62:434–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Blondeau JM. New concepts in antimicrobial susceptibility testing: the mutant prevention concentration and mutant selection window approach. Vet Dermatol. 2009;20:383–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Allen GP, Kaatz GW, Rybak MJ. In vitro activities of mutant prevention concentration-targeted concentrations of fluoroquinolones against Staphylococcus aureus in a pharmacodynamic model. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2004;24:150–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Olofsson SK, Marcusson LL, Lindgren PK, Hughes D, Cars O. Selection of ciprofloxacin resistance in Escherichia coli in an in vitro kinetic model: relation between drug exposure and mutant prevention concentration. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2006;57:1116–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Firsov AA, Vostrov SN, Lubenko IY, Zinner SH, Portnoy YA. Concentration-dependent changes in the susceptibility and killing of Staphylococcus aureus in an in vitro dynamic model that simulates normal and impaired gatifloxacin elimination. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2004;23:60–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Campion JJ, McNamara PJ, Evans ME. Evolution of ciprofloxacin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in in vitro pharmacokinetic environments. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2004;48:4733–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Gumbo T, Louie A, Liu W, Brown D, Ambrose PG, Bhavnani SM, Drusano GL. Isoniazid bactericidal activity and resistance emergence: integrating pharmacodynamics and pharmacogenomics to predict efficacy in different ethnic populations. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2007;51:2329–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Homma T, Hori T, Sugimori G, Yamano Y. Pharmacodynamic assessment based on mutant prevention concentrations of fluoroquinolones to prevent the emergence of resistant mutants of Streptococcus pneumoniae. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2007;51:3810–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Zinner SH, Gilbert D, Greer K, Portnoy YA, Firsov AA. Сoncentration-resistance relationships with Pseudomonas aeruginosa exposed to doripenem and ciprofloxacin in an in vitro model. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2013;68:881–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Firsov AA, Lubenko IY, Smirnova MV, Strukova EN, Zinner SH. Enrichment of fluoroquinolone-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: oscillating ciprofloxacin concentrations simulated at the upper and lower portions of the mutant selection window. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2008;52:1924–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Alieva KN, Strukova EN, Golikova MV, Portnoy YA, Zinner SH, Firsov AA. Time inside the mutant selection window as a predictor of staphylococcal resistance to linezolid. J Antibiot. 2017; (in press).Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Li X, Wang L, Zhang XJ, Yang Y, Gong WT, Xu B, Zhu YQ, Liu W. Evaluation of meropenem regimens suppressing emergence of resistance in Acinetobacter baumannii with human simulated exposure in an in vitro intravenous-infusion hollow-fiber infection model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2014;58:6773–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Firsov AA, Lubenko IY, Vostrov SN, Portnoy YA, Zinner SH. Antistaphylococcal effect related to the area under the curve/MIC ratio in an in vitro dynamic model: predicted breakpoints versus clinically achievable values for seven fluoroquinolones. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2005;49:2642–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Strukova EN, Portnoy YA, Zinner SH, Firsov AA. Species differences in ciprofloxacin resistance among gram-negative bacteria: can “anti-mutant” ratios of the area under the concentration–time curve to the MIC be achieved clinically?. J Chemother. 2017; doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/1120009X.2017.1335980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Drlica K. The mutant selection window and antimicrobial resistance. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2003;52:11–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Firsov AA, Vostrov SN, Lubenko IY, Portnoy YA, Zinner SH. Prevention of the selection of resistant Staphylococcus aureus by moxifloxacin plus doxycycline in an in vitro dynamic model: an additive effect of the combination. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2004;23:451–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Zinner SH, Gilbert D, Lubenko IY, Greer K, Firsov AA. Selection of linezolid-resistant Enterococcus faecium in an in vitro dynamic model: protective effect of doxycycline. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2008;61:629–6357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Deris ZZ, Yu HH, Davis K, Soon RL, Jacob J, Ku CK, Poudyal A, Bergen PJ, Tsuji BT, Bulitta JB, Forrest A, Paterson DL, Velkov T, Li J, Nation RL. The combination of colistin and doripenem is synergistic against Klebsiella pneumoniae at multiple inocula and suppresses colistin resistance in an in vitro pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2012;56:5103–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Albur MS, Noel A, Bowker K, MacGowan A. The combination of colistin and fosfomycin is synergistic against NDM-1-producing Enterobacteriaceae in in vitro pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic model experiments. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2015;46:560–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Liu X, Zhao M, Chen Y, Bian X, Li Y, Shi J, Zhang J. Synergistic killing by meropenem and colistin combination of carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii isolates from Chinese patients in an in vitro pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic model. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2016;48:559–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Cai X, Yang Z, Dai J, Chen K, Liu H, Ni W, Wei C, Cui J. Pharmacodynamics of tigecycline alone and in combination with colistin against clinical isolates of multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii in an in vitro pharmacodynamic model. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2017;49:609–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Yim J, Smith JR, Singh NB, Rice S, Stamper K, Garcia de la Maria C, Bayer AS, Mishra NN, Miró JM, Tran TT, Arias CA, Sullam P, Rybak MJ. Evaluation of daptomycin combinations with cephalosporins or gentamicin against Streptococcus mitis group strains in an in vitro model of simulated endocardial vegetations (SEVs). J Antimicrob Chemother. 2017;72:2290–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Drusano GL, Neely M, Van Guilder M, Schumitzky A, Brown D, Fikes S, Peloquin C, Louie A. Analysis of combination drug therapy to develop regimens with shortened duration of treatment for tuberculosis. PLoS One. 2014;9:1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Firsov AA, Golikova MV, Strukova EN, Portnoy YA, Dovzhenko SA, Kobrin MB, Zinner SH. Pharmacokinetically based prediction of the effects of antibiotic combinations on resistant Staphylococcus aureus mutants: in vitro model studies with linezolid and rifampicin. J Chemother. 2017;29:220–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Zhanel GG, Mayer M, Laing N, Adam HJ. Mutant prevention concentrations of levofloxacin alone and in combination with azithromycin, ceftazidime, colistin (polymyxin E), meropenem, piperacillin-tazobactam, and tobramycin against Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2006;50:2228–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Cai Y, Yang J, Kan Q, Nie X, Wang R, Liang B, Bai N. Mutant prevention concentration of colistin alone and in combination with levofloxacin or tobramycin against multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2012;40:477–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Liu LG, Zhu YL, Hu LF, Cheng J, Ye Y, Li JB. Comparative study of the mutant prevention concentrations of vancomycin alone and in combination with levofloxacin, rifampicin and fosfomycin against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis. J Antibiot. 2013;66:709–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Wei W, Yang H, Hu L, Ye Y, Li J. Activity of levofloxacin in combination with colistin against Acinetobacter baumannii: in vitro and in a Galleria mellonella model. J Microbiol Immunol Infect. 2015; doi:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmii.2015.10.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Wu J, Jiang TT, Su JR, Li L. Antimicrobial activity of linezolid combined with minocycline against vancomycin-resistant Enterococci. Chin Med J. 2013;126:2670–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander A. Firsov
    • 1
  • Yury A. Portnoy
    • 1
  • Stephen H. Zinner
    • 2
  1. 1.Gause Institute of New AntibioticsMoscowRussia
  2. 2.Mount Auburn Hospital, Harvard Medical SchoolCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations