Advertisement

The Role of Pharmacometrics in the Development of Antimicrobial Agents

  • Justin C. Bader
  • Elizabeth A. Lakota
  • Brian VanScoy
  • Sujata M. Bhavnani
  • Paul G. Ambrose
Chapter
Part of the Emerging Infectious Diseases of the 21st Century book series (EIDC)

Abstract

We live in a world teeming with antimicrobial-resistant pathogens. For a number of pan-resistant pathogens, our once plentiful antimicrobial armamentarium is now quite limited. There is a critical need for new antimicrobial agents to treat patients with infections due to these highly resistant organisms such as Gram-negative bacilli [1]. The need for new agents is especially great for the treatment of patient populations at great risk for morbidity and mortality, such as those with hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP and VABP, respectively) arising from resistant pathogens.

References

  1. 1.
    Boucher HW, Ambrose PG, Chambers HF, Ebright RH, Jezek A, Murray BE, Newland JG, Ostrowsky B, Rex JH. White paper: Developing antimicrobial drugs for resistant pathogens, narrow-spectrum indications, and unmet needs. J Infect Dis. 2017;216:228–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bulik CC, Bhavnani SM, Hammel JP, Forrest A, Dudley MN, Ellis-Grosse EJ, Drusano GL, Ambrose PG. Evaluation of the probability of regulatory approval based on pre-clinical pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic target attainment for community-acquired bacterial and hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia. In: Abstracts of the Interscience conference on antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy, Denver, September 10–13, 2013. Abstract A-295.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ambrose PG, Bhavnani SM, Rubino CM, Louie A, Gumbo T, Forrest A, Drusano GL. Pharmacokinetics-pharmacodynamics of antimicrobial therapy: It's not just for mice anymore. Clin Infect Dis. 2007;44:79–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ambrose PG. Antibacterial drug development program successes and failures: a pharmacometric explanation. Curr Opin Pharmacol. 2017;36:1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    United States Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for Industry. Acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections: developing drugs for treatment. October 2013.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    United States Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for Industry. Community-acquired bacterial pneumonia: developing drugs for treatment. Draft guidance. January 2014.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    United States Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for Industry. Hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia: developing drugs for treatment. Draft guidance. May 2014.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    United States Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for Industry. Complicated intra-abdominal infections: developing drugs for treatment. February 2015.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    United States Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry. Complicated urinary tract infections: developing drugs for treatment. February 2015.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    United States Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for Industry. Antibacterial therapies for patients with unmet medical need for the treatment of serious bacterial diseases. August 2017.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    European Medicines Agency, Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use. Guideline on the use of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in the development of antibacterial medicinal products. 21 July 2016.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Craig WA. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic parameters: rationale for antibacterial dosing of mice and men. Clin Infect Dis. 1998;26:1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Andes D, Diekema DJ, Pfaller MA, Prince RA, Marchillo K, Ashbeck J, Hou J. In vivo pharmacodynamic characterization of anidulafungin in a neutropenic murine candidiasis model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2008;52:539–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bader JC, Bhavnani SM, Andes DR, Ambrose PG. We can do better: a fresh look at echinocandin dosing. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2018;73 (suppl 1):i44-50. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29304211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    VanScoy BD, Lakota EA, Bhavnani SM, McCauley J, Nagira Y, Ouchi S, Ambrose PG. Identification of the arbekacin pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic targets associated with efficacy and the prevention of the amplification of Pseudomonas aeruginosa-resistant subpopulations after administration of ME1100 inhalation solution. In: Abstracts of the American Society for Microbiology Microbe 2017, New Orleans, June 1–5, 2017. Abstract 2286.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bader JC, Lakota EA, Bravo J, Dieppois G, Nicolas-Métral V, Miesel L, Lin K-Y, Ambrose PG, Bhavnani SM. Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic analyses for debio 1450 (afabicin), a staphylococcal-specific antibiotic, using data from a murine-thigh infection model. In: Abstracts of the American Society for Microbiology microbe 2017, New Orleans, June 1–5, 2017. Abstract 2133.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hawser S, Gueny M, Le Bras C, Morrissey I, Valmont R, Magnet S, Wittke F, Dieppois G. Activity of Debio 1452 against Staphylococcus spp. collected in 2013 / 2014. In: Abstracts of the European congress of clinical microbiology and infectious diseases, Amsterdam, April 9–12, 2016. Abstract P1333.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    VanScoy BD, Lakota EA, Adams J, Bhavnani SM, Newman J, Ambrose PG. Pharmacokinetics-pharmacodynamics of efficacy for eravacycline against Escherichia coli in an in vitro infection model. In: Abstracts of the American Society for Microbiology microbe 2017, New Orleans, June 1–5, 2017. Abstract 2115.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing. Approved Standard. 26CLSI document M100S ed. Wayne: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; 2016.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tetracycline hydrochloride. Package insert. Eatontown: Heritage Pharmaceuticals Inc.; 2015.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Andes DR, Lepak AJ. In vivo infection models in the pre-clinical pharmacokinetic/ pharmacodynamics evaluation of antimicrobial agents. Curr Opin Pharmacol. 2017;36:94–99.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Louie A, Castanheira M, Liu W, Grasso C, Jones RN, Williams G, Critchley I, Thye D, Brown D, VanScoy BD, Kulawy R, Drusano GL. Pharmacodynamics of β-lactamase inhibition by NXL104 in combination with ceftaroline: examining organisms with multiple types of β-lactamases. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2012;56:258–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    VanScoy BD, Mendes RE, Castanheira M, McCauley J, Bhavnani SM, Forrest A, Jones RN, Okusanya OO, Friedrich LV, Steenbergen JN, Ambrose PG. Relationship between ceftolozane-tazobactam exposure and drug resistance amplification in a hollow-fiber infection model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2013;57:4134–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chow JW, Fine MJ, Shlaes DM, Quinn JP, Hooper DC, Johnson MP, Ramphal R, Wagener MM, Miyashiro DK, Yu VL. Enterbacter bacteremia: clinical features and emergence of antibiotic resistance during therapy. Ann Inter Med. 1991;115:585–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jacoby GA. AmpC β-lactamases. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2009;22:161–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Merck & Co., Inc. Zerbraxa®(ceftolozane and tazobactam) package insert. Whitehouse Station; 2016.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kawaguchi N, Katsube T, Echols R, Wajima T. Population pharmacokinetic analysis of cefiderocol, a parenteral siderophores cephalosporin, in healthy subjects, subjects with various degrees of renal function, and patients with complicated urinary tract infection or acute uncomplicated pyelonephritis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2018;62:e01391–17.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Roberts JA, Lipman J. Pharmacokinetic issues for antibiotics in the critically ill patient. Crit Care Med. 2009;37(3):840–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Trang M, Ellis-Grosse EJ, Eckburg PB, Skarinsky D, Bhavnani SM, Rubino CM. Population pharmacokinetic (PPK) analysis of ZTI-01 (fosfomycin for injection) using data from healthy subjects and patients with complicated urinary tract infections (cUTI). Open Forum Infect Dis. 2017;4 (Suppl 1);S529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Forrest A, Ballow CH, Nix DE, Birmingham MC, Schentag JJ. Development of a population pharmacokinetic model and optimal sampling strategies for intravenous ciprofloxacin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1993;37:1067–72.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Drusano GL, Preston SL, Fowler C, Corrado M, Weisinger B, Kahn J. Relationship between fluoroquinolone area under the curve: minimum inhibitory concentration ratio and the probability of eradication of the infecting pathogen, in patients with nosocomial pneumonia. J Infect Dis. 2004;189:1590–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Preston SL, Drusano GL, Berman AL, Fowler CL, Chow AT, Dornseif B, Reichl V, Natarajan J, Wong FE, Corrado M. Levofloxacin population pharmacokinetics and creation of a demographic model for prediction of individual drug clearance in patients with serious community-acquired infection. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1998;42:1098–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Drusano GL, Preston SL, Hardalo C, et al. Use of preclinical data for selection of a phase II/III dose for evernimicin and identification of a preclinical MIC breakpoint. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2001;45:13–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bhavnani SM, Hammel JP, Cirincione BB, Wikler MA, Ambrose PG. Use of pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic target attainment analyses to support phase 2 and 3 dosing strategies for doripenem. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2005;49:3944–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Van Wart SA, Ambrose PG, Rubino CM, Khariton T, Riccobene TA, Frieland HD, Critchley IA, Bhavnani SM. Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic target attainment analyses to evaluate in vitro susceptibility test interpretive criteria for ceftaroline against Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus pneumoniae. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2014;58:885–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Flamm R, Sader H, Castanheira M, Jones RN. The application of in vitro surveillance data for antibacterial dose selection. Curr Opin Pharmacol. 2017;36:130–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ambrose PG. “Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic target selection: It’s all about the goal.” The use of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in the development of antibacterial medicinal products workshop in cooperation with the European Medicines Agency. London, November 12–13, 2015.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Trang M, Dudley MN, Bhavnani SM. Use of Monte Carlo simulation and considerations for PK-PD targets to support antibacterial dose selection. Curr Opin Pharmacol. 2017;36:107–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Van Ogtrop ML, Andes DR, Stamstad TJ, Conklin B, Weiss WJ, Craig WA, Vesga O. In vivo pharmacodynamic activities of two glycylcyclines (GAR-936 and WAY 152,288) against various gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2000;44:943–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Crandon JL, Banevicius MA, Nicolau DP. Pharmacodynamics of tigecycline against phenotypically diverse Staphylococcus aureus isolates in a murine thigh model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2009;53:1165–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Bhavnani SM, Rubino CM, Ambrose PG, Babinchak TJ, Korth-Bradley JM, Drusano GL. Impact of different factors on the probability of clinical response in tigecycline-treated patients with intra-abdominal infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2010;54:1207–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Pfizer. Tygacil (tigecycline)® package insert. New York; 2016.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Bhavnani SM, Trang M, Griffith DC, Lomovskaya O, Hammel JP, Loutit JS, Dudley MN, Ambrose PG, Rubino CM. Meropenem-vaborbactam pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic target attainment analyses as support for dose selection in patients with normal renal function and varying degrees of renal impairment. In: Abstracts of the Infectious Disease Society of America IDWeek, San Diego. October 4–8, 2017. Abstract 1852.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    The Medicines Company. Meropenem and vaborbactam (VABOMERE)™ package insert. Parsippany; 2017.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Melinta Therapeutics. BAXDELA (delafloxacin)® package insert. New Haven; 2017.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Cammarata S, Garovskis J, Farley B, Sun E, Quintas M, Lawrence L, Pullman J. Results of a global Phase 3 study of delafloxacin (DLX) compared to vancomycin with aztreonam (VAN) in acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI). In: Abstracts of the Infectious Disease Society of America IDWeek, San Diego, October 7–11, 2015. Abstract 776.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    O’Riordan W, McManus A, Teras J, Poromanski I, Cruz Saldariagga M, Qunitas M, Lawrence L, Cammarata SK. A global Phase 3 study of delafloxacin (DLX) compared to vancomycin/aztreonam (VAN/AZ) in patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI). In: Abstracts of the Infectious Disease Society of America IDWeek, New Orleans, October 26–30, 2016. Abstract 1347.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Bhavnani SM, Zhang L, Ambrose PG, Flamm RK, Cammarata SK, Rubio CM. Population pharmacokinetic (PPK) and pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PK-PD) target attainment analyses for delafloxacin to support dose selection for the treatment of patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI). In: Abstracts of the Infectious Disease Society of America IDWeek, San Diego, October 4–8, 2017. Abstract 1851.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Craig WA, Andes DR. Treatment of infections with ESBL-producing organisms: pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic considerations. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2005;11:10–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Facilitating antibacterial Drug Development for Patients with Unmet Need and Developing Antibacterial Drugs that Target a Single Species Workshop. Food and Drug Administration, United States Department of Health and Human Services. Silver Spring. Available at https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/NewsEvents/ucm497650.htm. Accessed 30 Oct 2017.
  51. 51.
    Bhavnani SM, Hammel JP. Clinical pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic analyses: a critical element for developing antibacterial agents. Curr Opin Pharmacol. 2017;36:124–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Forrest A, Nix DE, Ballow CH, Goss TF, Birmingham MC, Schentag JJ. Pharmacodynamics of intravenous ciprofloxacin in seriously ill patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1993;37:1073–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Bhavnani SM, Rubino CM, Hammel JP, Forrest A, Dartois N, Cooper CA, Korth-Bradley J, Ambrose PG. Pharmacological and patient-specific response determinants in patients with hospital-acquired pneumonia treated with tigecycline. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2012;56:1065–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Bhavnani SM, Ambrose PG, Hammel JP, Rubino CM, Drusano GL. Evaluation of daptomycin exposure and efficacy and safety endpoints to support risk-versus-benefit considerations. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2015;60:1600–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Bhavnani SM, Hammel JP, Rubino CM, Bulik CC, Reynolds DK, Ivezic-Schoenfeld Z, Wicha WW, Novak R, Prince WT, Ambrose PG. Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic analysis for efficacy of BC-3781 using new clinical trial endpoints in patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection. In: Abstracts of the interscience conference on antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy, Chicago, September 17–20, 2011. Abstract A2–042.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Hayden FG, Treanor JJ, Fritz RS, Lobo M, Betts RF, Miller M, Kinnersley N, Mills RG, Ward P, Straus SE. Use of the oral neuraminidase inhibitor oseltamivir in experimental human influenza: randomized controlled trials for prevention and treatment. J Am Med Assoc. 1999;282:1240–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Ambrose PG, Anon JB, Owen JS, Van Wart SA, McPhee ME, Bhavnani SM, Piedmonte M, Jones RN. Use of pharmacodynamic endpoints in the evaluation of gatifloxacin for the treatment of acute maxillary sinusitis. Clin Infect Dis. 2004;38:1513–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Ambrose PG, Anon JB, Bhavnani SM, Okusanya OO, Jones RN, Paglia MR, Kahn J, Drusano GL. Use of pharmacodynamic endpoints for the evaluation of levofloxacin for the treatment of acute maxillary sinusitis. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2008;61:13–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Bhavnani SM, Rubino CM, Ambrose PG. Evaluation of exposure-response relationships using clinical data: basic concepts and applications. In: Rotschafer JC, Andes DR, Rodvold KA, editors. Antibiotic pharmacodynamics. New York: Springer; 2016.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Rubino CM, Bhavnani SM, Forrest A, Dukart G, Dartois N, Cooper A, Korth-Bradley J, Ambrose PG. Pharmacokinetics-pharmacodynamics of tigecycline in patients with community-acquired pneumonia. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2012;56:130–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Bhavnani SM, Hammel JP, Forrest A, Van Wart SA, Sager P, Tack KJ, Scott RW, Jorgensen DM, Ambrose PG. Application of PK-PD models for brilacidin dose selection support for patients with ABSSSI. In: Abstracts of the American Society for Microbiology Microbe 2016, Boston, June 16–20, 2016. Abstract Monday-517.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Meeting of the Antimicrobial Drugs Advisory Committee (AMDAC), Food and Drug Administration. Briefing Document. Solithromycin oral capsule and injection. November 2016. Available at https://www.fda.gov/downloads/advisorycommittees/committeesmeetingmaterials/drugs/anti-infectivedrugsadvisorycommittee/ucm527690.pdf. Accessed 23 Oct 2017.
  63. 63.
    Bhavnani SM, Hammel JP, Rubino CM, Dunne M, Ambrose PG. Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic analyses for the efficacy of dalbavancin using Phase 3 data from patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections. In: Abstracts of the interscience conference on antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy, Washington, DC, September 5–9, 2014. Abstract A-1186.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Bhavnani SM, Hammel JP, Rubino CM, Moeck G, Jiang H, Bellibas SE, Ambrose PG. Oritavancin pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic analyses for efficacy based on data from patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections enrolled in SOLO I and II. In: Abstracts of the interscience conference on antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy, Washington, DC, September 5–9, 2014. Abstract A-1309.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Freire AT, MelnykV KMJ, Datsenko O, Dzyublik O, Glumcher F, Chuang Y-C, Maroko RT, Dukart G, Cooper CA, Korth-Bradley JM, Dartois N, Gandjini H. Comparison of tigecycline with imipenem/cilastatin for the treatment of hospital-acquired pneumonia. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2010;68:140–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Ambrose PG, Hammel J, Bhavnani SM, Rubino CM, Ellis-Grosse EJ, Drusano GL. Frequentist and Bayesian pharmacometric-based approaches to facilitate critically needed new antibiotic development: overcoming lies, damn lies, and statistics. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2012;56:1466–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    United States Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for Industry. Non-inferiority clinical trials to establish effectiveness. November 2016.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Justin C. Bader
    • 1
  • Elizabeth A. Lakota
    • 1
  • Brian VanScoy
    • 1
  • Sujata M. Bhavnani
    • 1
  • Paul G. Ambrose
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Clinical PharmacodynamicsSchenectadyUSA

Personalised recommendations