4.7 Article

Relationship between Ceftolozane-Tazobactam Exposure and Selection for Pseudomonas aeruginosa Resistance in a Hollow-Fiber Infection Model

Journal

ANTIMICROBIAL AGENTS AND CHEMOTHERAPY
Volume 58, Issue 10, Pages 6024-6031

Publisher

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.02310-13

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Cubist Pharmaceuticals Inc., Lexington, MA.
  2. Achaogen
  3. Astellas
  4. AstraZeneca
  5. Basilea Pharmaceutica
  6. Bayer HealthCare
  7. Bristol-Meyers Squibb
  8. Cempra Pharmaceuticals
  9. Cerexa
  10. Cubist Pharmaceuticals
  11. Durata Pharmaceuticals
  12. Fedora Pharmaceuticals
  13. Forest Research Institute
  14. Furiex Pharmaceuticals
  15. GlaxoSmithKline
  16. Meiji Seika Pharma
  17. Nabriva Therapeutics
  18. Nimbus
  19. Pfizer
  20. PolyMedix
  21. Roche Bioscience
  22. Rempex Pharmaceuticals
  23. Rib-X Pharmaceuticals
  24. Rock Therapeutics
  25. Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals
  26. Medicines Company
  27. American Proficiency Institute (API)
  28. Anacor
  29. Bayer
  30. Basilea Pharmaceuticala
  31. Cempra/Forest
  32. Contrafect
  33. Cubist
  34. Daiichi
  35. Dipexium
  36. Durata
  37. Enanta
  38. Fedora
  39. Furiex
  40. Johnson Johnson (JJ)
  41. Ortho McNeil
  42. LegoChem Biosciences Inc.
  43. Merck
  44. Nabriva
  45. Novartis
  46. Pfizer (Wyeth)
  47. Rempex
  48. Seachaid
  49. Shionogi
  50. Theravance
  51. Thermo Fisher

Ask authors/readers for more resources

It is important to understand the relationship between antibiotic exposure and the selection of drug resistance in the context of therapy exposure. We sought to identify the ceftolozane-tazobactam exposure necessary to prevent the amplification of drug-resistant bacterial subpopulations in a hollow-fiber infection model. Two Pseudomonas aeruginosa challenge isolates were selected for study, a wild-type ATCC strain (ceftolozane-tazobactam MIC, 0.5 mg/liter) and a clinical isolate (ceftolozane-tazobactam MIC, 4 mg/liter). The experiment duration was 10 days, and the ceftolozane-tazobactam dose ratio (2:1) and dosing interval (every 8 h) were selected to approximate those expected to be used clinically. The studied ceftolozane-tazobactam dosing regimens ranged from 62.5/31.25 to 2,000/1,000 mg per dose in step fold dilutions. Negative-control arms included no treatment and tazobactam at 500 mg every 8 h. Positive-control arms included ceftolozane at 1 g every 8 h and piperacillin-tazobactam dosed at 4.5 g every 6 h. For the wild-type ATCC strain, resistance was not selected by any ceftolozane-tazobactam regimen evaluated. For the clinical isolate, an inverted-U-shaped function best described the relationship between the amplification of a drug-resistant subpopulation and drug exposure. The least (62.5/31.25 mg) and most (2,000/1,000 mg) intensive ceftolozane-tazobactam dosing regimens did not select for drug resistance. Drug resistance selection was observed with intermediately intensive dosing regimens (125/62.5 through 1,000/500 mg). For the intermediately intensive ceftolozane-tazobactam dosing regimens, the duration until the selection for drug resistance increased with dose regimen intensity. These data support the selection of ceftolozane-tazobactam dosing regimens that minimize the potential for on-therapy drug resistance selection.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available