In vitro pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic models in anti-infective drug development: focus on TB

Bibliography

• 1  World Health Organization. Global tuberculosis control. Epidemiology, strategy, financing. WHO report 2009. WHO/HTM/TB/2009.411, Geneva, Switzerland (2009).
  Google Scholar
• 2  Meibohm B, Derendorf H. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic studies in drug product development. J. Pharm. Sci.91,18–31 (2002).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 3  Suryawanshi S, Zhang L, Pfister M, Meibohm B. The current role of model-based drug development. Expert Opin. Drug Discov.5,311–321 (2010).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 4  Zhang L, Pfister M, Meibohm B. Concepts and challenges in quantitative pharmacology and model-based drug development. AAPS J.10,552–559 (2008).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 5  Budha NR, Lee RE, Meibohm B. Biopharmaceutics, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of anti-tuberculosis drugs. Curr. Med. Chem.15,809–825 (2008).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 6  Boshoff HI, Barry CE 3rd. Tuberculosis – metabolism and respiration in the absence of growth. Nat. Rev. Microbiol.3,70–80 (2005).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 7  Gloede J, Scheerans C, Derendorf H, Kloft C. In vitro pharmacodynamic models to determine the effect of antibacterial drugs. J. Antimicrob. Chemother.65,186–201 (2010).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 8  Katsube T, Yano Y, Yamano Y, Munekage T, Kuroda N, Takano M. Pharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamic modeling and simulation for bactericidal effect in an in vitro dynamic model. J. Pharm. Sci.97,4108–4117 (2008).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 9  White RL. What in vitro models of infection can and cannot do. Pharmacotherapy21,292S–301S (2001).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 10  Schmidt S, Barbour A, Sahre M, Rand Kh, Derendorf H. PK/PD: new insights for antibacterial and antiviral applications. Curr. Opin. Pharmacol.8,549–556 (2008).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 11  Mouton JW, Theuretzbacher U, Craig WA, Tulkens PM, Derendorf H, Cars O. Tissue concentrations: do we ever learn? J. Antimicrob. Chemother.61,235–237 (2008).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 12  Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Approved standard M7-A7. Methods for dilution antimicrobial susceptibility tests for bacteria that grow aerobically (2007).
  Google Scholar
• 13  Mueller M, De La Pena A, Derendorf H. Issues in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of anti-infective agents: kill curves versus MIC. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.48,369–377 (2004).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 14  Craig WA. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic parameters: rationale for antibacterial dosing of mice and men. Clin. Infect. Dis.26,1–10 (1998).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 15  Macgowan A, Bowker K. Developments in PK/PD: optimising efficacy and prevention of resistance. A critical review of PK/PD in in vitro models. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents19,291–298 (2002).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 16  Garrett ER, Wright OK, Miller GH, Smith KL. Quantification and prediction of the biological activities of chloramphenicol analogs by microbial kinetics. J. Med. Chem.9,203–208 (1966).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 17  Li RC, Zhu M, Schentag JJ. Achieving an optimal outcome in the treatment of infections. The role of clinical pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of antimicrobials. Clin. Pharmacokinet.37,1–16 (1999).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 18  Nolting A, Dalla Costa T, Rand KH, Derendorf H. Pharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamic modeling of the antibiotic effect of piperacillin in vitro. Pharm. Res.13,91–96 (1996).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 19  Schentag JJ. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic surrogate markers: studies with fluoroquinolones in patients. Am. J. Health Syst. Pharm.56,S21–S24 (1999).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 20  Schentag JJ. Antimicrobial action and pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics: the use of AUIC to improve efficacy and avoid resistance. J. Chemother.11,426–439 (1999).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 21  Jayaram R, Gaonkar S, Kaur P et al. Pharmacokinetics-pharmacodynamics of rifampin in an aerosol infection model of tuberculosis. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.47,2118–2124 (2003).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 22  Jayaram R, Shandil RK, Gaonkar S et al. Isoniazid pharmacokinetics–pharmacodynamics in an aerosol infection model of tuberculosis. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.48,2951–2957 (2004).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 23  Shandil RK, Jayaram R, Kaur P et al. Moxifloxacin, ofloxacin, sparfloxacin and ciprofloxacin against Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Evaluation of in vitro and pharmacodynamic indices that best predict in vivo efficacy. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.51,576–582 (2007).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 24  Grasso S, Meinardi G, De Carneri I, Tamassia V. New in vitro model to study the effect of antibiotic concentration and rate of elimination on antibacterial activity. Antimicrob Agents Chemother.13,570–576 (1978).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 25  Keil S, Wiedemann B. Mathematical corrections for bacterial loss in pharmacodynamic in vitro dilution models. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.39,1054–1058 (1995).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 26  White CA, Toothaker RD, Smith AL, Slattery JT. Correction for bacterial loss in in vitro dilution models. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.31,1859–1860 (1987).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 27  Budha NR, Lee RB, Hurdle JG, Lee RE, Meibohm B. A simple in vitro PK/PD model system to determine time-kill curves of drugs against mycobacteria. Tuberculosis89,378–385 (2009).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 28  Lowdin E, Odenholt I, Bengtsson S, Cars O. Pharmacodynamic effects of sub-MICs of benzylpenicillin against Streptococcus pyogenes in a newly developed in vitro kinetic model. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.40,2478–2482 (1996).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 29  Blaser J, Stone BB, Zinner SH. Two compartment kinetic model with multiple artificial capillary units. J. Antimicrob. Chemother.15,131–137 (1985).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 30  Garrison MW, Vance-Bryan K, Larson TA et al. Assessment of effects of protein binding on daptomycin and vancomycin killing of Staphylococcus aureus by using an in vitro pharmacodynamic model. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.34,1925–1931 (1990).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 31  Reeves DS. Advantages and disadvantages of an in vitro model with two compartments connected by a dialyser: results of experiments with ciprofloxacin. J. Antimicrob. Chemother.15,159–167 (1985).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 32  Gumbo T, Louie A, Deziel MR, Parsons LM, Salfinger M, Drusano GL. Selection of a moxifloxacin dose that suppresses drug resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis, by use of an in vitro pharmacodynamic infection model and mathematical modeling. J. Infect. Dis.190,1642–1651 (2004).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 33  Gumbo T, Louie A, Deziel MR, Drusano GL. Pharmacodynamic evidence that ciprofloxacin failure against tuberculosis is not due to poor microbial kill but to rapid emergence of resistance. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.49,3178–3181 (2005).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 34  Gumbo T, Louie A, Liu W et al. Isoniazid’s bactericidal activity ceases because of the emergence of resistance, not depletion of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in the log phase of growth. J. Infect. Dis.195,194–201 (2007).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 35  Gumbo T, Louie A, Liu W et al. Isoniazid bactericidal activity and resistance emergence: integrating pharmacodynamics and pharmacogenomics to predict efficacy in different ethnic populations. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.51,2329–2336 (2007).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 36  Gumbo T, Louie A, Deziel MR et al. Concentration-dependent Mycobacterium tuberculosis killing and prevention of resistance by rifampin. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.51,3781–3788 (2007).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 37  Gumbo T, Dona CS, Meek C, Leff R. Pharmacokinetics–pharmacodynamics of pyrazinamide in a novel in vitro model of tuberculosis for sterilizing effect: a paradigm for faster assessment of new anti-tuberculosis drugs. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.53,3197–3204 (2009).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 38  Srivastava S, Musuka S, Sherman C, Meek C, Leff R, Gumbo T. Efflux-pump-derived multiple drug resistance to ethambutol monotherapy in Mycobacterium tuberculosis and the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of ethambutol. J. Infect. Dis.201,1225–1231 (2010).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 39  Vogelman BS, Craig WA. Post-antibiotic effects. J. Antimicrob. Chemother.15,37–46 (1985).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 40  McDonald PJ, Craig WA, Kunin CM. Persistent effect of antibiotics on Staphylococcus aureus after exposure for limited periods of time. J. Infect. Dis.135,217–223 (1977).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 41  Mouton JW, Dudley MN, Cars O, Derendorf H, Drusano GL. Standardization of pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) terminology for anti-infective drugs. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents19,355–358 (2002).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 42  Chan CY, Au-Yeang C, Yew WW, Leung CC, Cheng AF. In vitro post-antibiotic effects of rifapentine, isoniazid and moxifloxacin against Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.48,340–343 (2004).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 43  Levison ME. Pharmacodynamics of antimicrobial drugs. Infect. Dis. Clin. North. Am.18,451–465 (2004).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 44  Odenholt-Tornqvist I, Lowdin E, Cars O. Pharmacodynamic effects of subinhibitory concentrations of b-lactam antibiotics in vitro. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.35,1834–1839 (1991).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 45  Ginsburg AS, Lee J, Woolwine SC, Grosset JH, Hamzeh FM, Bishai WW. Modeling in vivo pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of moxifloxacin therapy for Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection by using a novel cartridge system. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.49,853–856 (2005).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 46  National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing: twentieth informational supplement M100–M120 (2010).
  Google Scholar
• 47  Drusano GL, Liu W, Fregeau C, Kulawy R, Louie A. Differing effects of combination chemotherapy with meropenem and tobramycin on cell kill and suppression of resistance of wild-type Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO1 and its isogenic MexAB efflux pump-overexpressed mutant. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.53,2266–2273 (2009).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 48  Hurdle JG, Lee RB, Budha NR et al. A microbiological assessment of novel nitrofuranylamides as anti-tuberculosis agents. J. Antimicrob. Chemother.62,1037–1045 (2008).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 49  Blaser J. In vitro model for simultaneous simulation of the serum kinetics of two drugs with different half-lives. J. Antimicrob. Chemother.15,125–130 (1985).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 50  Cha R, Rybak MJ. Linezolid and vancomycin, alone and in combination with rifampin, compared with moxifloxacin against a multidrug-resistant and a vancomycin-tolerant Streptococcus pneumoniae strain in an in vitro pharmacodynamic model. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.47,1984–1987 (2003).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 51  Craig WA. Proof of concept: performance testing in models. Clin. Microbiol. Infect.10,12–17 (2004).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 52  Leonard SN, Kaatz GW, Rucker LR, Rybak MJ. Synergy between gemifloxacin and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole against community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. J. Antimicrob. Chemother.62,1305–1310 (2008).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 53  Zinner SH, Blaser J, Stone BB, Groner MC. Use of an in vitro kinetic model to study antibiotic combinations. J. Antimicrob Chemother.15,221–226 (1985).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 54  Tam VH, Louie A, Deziel MR, Liu W, Drusano GL. The relationship between quinolone exposures and resistance amplification is characterized by an inverted U: a new paradigm for optimizing pharmacodynamics to counterselect resistance. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.51,744–747 (2007).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 55  Dong Y, Zhao X, Domagala J, Drlica K. Effect of fluoroquinolone concentration on selection of resistant mutants of Mycobacterium bovis BCG and Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.43,1756–1758 (1999).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 56  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.51,3810–3815 (2007).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 57  Berger-Bachi B, Strassle A, Kayser FH. Characterization of an isogenic set of methicillin-resistant and susceptible mutants of Staphylococcus aureus. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol.5,697–701 (1986).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 58  Wootton M, Howe RA, Hillman R, Walsh–TR, Bennett PM, MacGowan AP. A modified population analysis profile (PAP) method to detect hetero-resistance to vancomycin in Staphylococcus aureus in a UK hospital. J. Antimicrob. Chemother.47,399–403 (2001).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 59  Czock D, Keller F. Mechanism-based pharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamic modeling of antimicrobial drug effects. J. Pharmacokinet. Pharmacodyn.34,727–751 (2007).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 60  Dahl SG, Aarons L, Gundert-Remy U et al. Incorporating physiological and biochemical mechanisms into pharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamic models: a conceptual framework. Basic Clin. Pharmacol. Toxicol.106,2–12 (2009).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 61  Balaban NQ, Merrin J, Chait R, Kowalik L, Leibler S. Bacterial persistence as a phenotypic switch. Science305,1622–1625 (2004).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 62  Nielsen EI, Viberg A, Lowdin E, Cars O, Karlsson MO, Sandstrom M. Semimechanistic pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic model for assessment of activity of antibacterial agents from time-kill curve experiments. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.51,128–136 (2007).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 63  Li Y, Nguyen MH, Cheng S et al. A pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic mathematical model accurately describes the activity of voriconazole against candida spp. in vitro. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents31,369–374 (2008).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 64  Russell DG. Who puts the tubercle in tuberculosis? Nat. Rev. Microbiol.5,39–47 (2007).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 65  Monack DM, Mueller A, Falkow S. Persistent bacterial infections: the interface of the pathogen and the host immune system. Nat. Rev. Microbiol.2,747–765 (2004).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 66  Eum SY, Kong JH, Hong MS et al. Neutrophils are the predominant infected phagocytic cells in the airways of patients with active pulmonary TB. Chest137,122–128 (2010).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 67  Dalhoff A. Differences between bacteria grown in vitro and in vivo. J. Antimicrob. Chemother.15,175–195 (1985).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 68  Watson DL, Prideaux JA. Comparisons of Staphylococcus aureus grown in vitro or in vivo. Microbiol. Immunol.23,543–547 (1979).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 69  Manganelli R, Dubnau E, Tyagi S, Kramer FR, Smith I. Differential expression of 10 sigma factor genes in Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Mol. Microbiol.31,715–724 (1999).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 70  Nuermberger E, Grosset J. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic issues in the treatment of mycobacterial infections. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis.23,243–255 (2004).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 71  Holdiness MR. Clinical pharmacokinetics of the anti-tuberculosis drugs. Clin. Pharmacokinet.9,511–544 (1984).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 72  Johnson JL, Hadad DJ, Boom WH et al. Early and extended early bactericidal activity of levofloxacin, gatifloxacin and moxifloxacin in pulmonary tuberculosis. Int. J. Tuberc. Lung Dis.10,605–612 (2006).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 73  McGee B, Dietze R, Hadad DJ et al. Population pharmacokinetics of linezolid in adults with pulmonary tuberculosis. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.53,3981–3984 (2009).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 74  Peloquin CA. Tuberculosis. In: Pharmacotherapy: A Pathophysiologic Approach (7th Edition). DiPiro JT TR, Yee GC, Matzke GR, Wells BG, Posey LM (Eds). McGraw-Hill Medical, NY, USA, 1839–1856 (2008).
  Google Scholar
• 75  Petri WA. Chemotherapy of tuberculosis, Mycobacterium avium complex disease, and leprosy. In: Goodman & Gilman’s The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics (11th Edition). Brunton LL, Lazo JS, Parker KL (Eds). McGraw-Hill Medical, NY, USA, 1203–1223 (2005).
  Google Scholar
• 76  World Health Organization Treatment of tuberculosis. Guidelines for national programs. WHO/HTM/TB/2009.420. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland (2009).
  Google Scholar
• 77  Jureen P, Angeby K, Sturegard E et al. Wild-type minimal inhibitory concentration distributions for aminoglycoside and cyclic polypeptide antibiotics used for the treatment of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. J. Clin. Microbiol.48,1853–1458 (2010).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar