4.7 Article

Pharmacodynamics of Levofloxacin in a Murine Pneumonia Model of Pseudomonas aeruginosa Infection: Determination of Epithelial Lining Fluid Targets

期刊

ANTIMICROBIAL AGENTS AND CHEMOTHERAPY
卷 53, 期 8, 页码 3325-3330

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.00006-09

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIAID to the Emerging Infections and Pharmacodynamics Laboratory [R01AI079578]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The dose choice for Pseudomonas aeruginosa remains a matter of debate. The actual exposure targets required for multilog killing of organisms at the primary infection site have not been delineated. We studied Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO1 using a murine model of pneumonia. We employed a large mathematical model to fit all the concentration-time data in plasma and epithelial lining fluid (ELF) as well as colony counts in lung simultaneously for all drug doses. Penetration into ELF was calculated to be approximately 77.7%, as indexed to the ratio of the area under the concentration-time curve for ELF (AUC(ELF)) to the AUC(plasma). We determined the ELF concentration-time profile required to drive a stasis response as well as 1-, 2-, or 3-log(10)(CFU/g) kill. AUC/MIC ratios of 12.4, 31.2, 62.8, and 127.6 were required to drive these bacterial responses. Emergence of resistance was seen only at the two lowest doses (three of five animals at 50 mg/kg [body weight] and one of five animals at 100 mg/kg). The low exposure targets were likely driven by a low mutational frequency to resistance. Bridging to humans was performed using Monte Carlo simulation. With a 750-mg levofloxacin dose, target attainment rates fell below 90% at 4 mg/liter, 1 mg/liter, and 0.5 mg/liter for 1-, 2-, and 3-log kills, respectively. Given the low exposure targets seen with this strain, we conclude that levofloxacin at a 750-mg dose is not adequate for serious Pseudomonas aeruginosa pneumonia as a single agent. More isolates need to be studied to make these observations more robust.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据