Skip to main content
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy logoLink to Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
. 1996 Mar;40(3):627–632. doi: 10.1128/aac.40.3.627

Twenty-four-hour area under the concentration-time curve/MIC ratio as a generic predictor of fluoroquinolone antimicrobial effect by using three strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and an in vitro pharmacodynamic model.

K J Madaras-Kelly 1, B E Ostergaard 1, L B Hovde 1, J C Rotschafer 1
PMCID: PMC163170  PMID: 8851583

Abstract

Several investigators have suggested that the 24-h area under the concentration-time curve (AUC)/MIC ratio (AUC/MIC24 or AUIC24) can be used to make comparisons of antimicrobial activity between fluoroquinolone antibiotics. Limited data exist regarding the generic predictive ability of AUC/MIC24 for the antimicrobial effects of fluoroquinolones. The purposes of the present investigation were to determine if the AUC/MIC24 can be used as a generic outcome predictor of fluoroquinolone antibacterial activity and to determine if a similar AUC/MIC24 breakpoint can be established for different fluoroquinolones. Using an in vitro pharmacodynamic model, 29 duplicate concentration time-kill curve experiments simulated AUC/MIC24s ranging from 52 to 508 SIT-1.h (inverse serum inhibitory titer integrated over time) with ciprofloxacin or ofloxacin against three strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Each 24-h experiment was performed in cation-supplemented Mueller-Hinton broth with a starting inoculum of 10(6) CFU/ml. At timed intervals cation-supplemented Mueller-Hinton broth samples were collected for CFU and fluoroquinolone concentration determinations. Transformation of bacterial counts into the cumulative bacterial effect parameter of the 24-h area under the effect curve (AUEC24) was performed for each concentration time-kill curve. Multivariate regression analysis was used to compare pharmacodynamic predictors (AUC/MIC24, 24-h AUC, peak concentration [Cmax] to MIC ratios [Cmax:MIC], etc.) with ln AUEC24. To identify threshold breakpoint AUC/MIC24s, AUEC24s were stratified by the magnitude of AUC/MIC24 into subgroups, which were analyzed for differences in antibacterial effect. The Kruskal-Wallis test and subsequent Tukey's multiple comparison test were used to determine which AUC/MIC subgroups were significantly different. Multiple regression analysis revealed that only AUC/MIC24 (r2 = 0.65) and MIC (r2 = 0.03) were significantly correlated with antibacterial effect. At similar AUC/MIC24s, yet different MICs, Cmaxs, or elimination half-lives, the AUEC24s were similar for both fluoroquinolones. The relationship between AUC/MIC24 and ln AUEC24 was best described by a sigmoidal maximal antimicrobial effect (Emax) model (r2 = 0.72; Emax = 9.1; AUC/MIC50 = 119 SIT-1.h; S = 2.01 [S is an exponent that reflects the degree of sigmoidicity]). Ciprofloxacin-bacteria AUC/MIC24 values of < 100 SIT-1.h were significantly different (P < 0.05) from the AUC/MIC24 values of > 100 SIT-1.h. An ofloxacin AUC/MIC24 of > 100 SIT-1.h and an AUC/MIC24 of < 100 SIT-1.h exhibited a trend toward a significant difference (P > 0.05 but < 0.1). The inverse relationship between drug exposure and MIC increase postexposure was described by a sigmoidal fixed Emax model (AUC/MIC24, r2 = 0.40; AUC/MIC50 = 95 SIT-1.h; S = 1.97; Cmax:MIC, r2 = 0.41; Cmax:MIC50 = 7.3; S = 2.01). These data suggest that AUC/MIC24 may be the most descriptive measurement of fluoroquinolone antimicrobial activity against P. aeruginosa, that ofloxacin and ciprofloxacin have similar AUC/MIC24 threshold breakpoints at approximately 100 SIT-1.h, that the concentration-dependent selection of resistant organisms may parallel the threshold breakpoint of the antimicrobial effect, and that AUC/MIC24 generically describes the antibacterial effects of different fluoroquinolones.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (251.6 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Bauernfeind A., Petermüller C., Heinrich B., Gablac R. Abhängigkeit von Bakterizidie und Mutantenselektion bei 4-Chinolonen von deren Serumkonzentrationsverläufen. Infection. 1986;14 (Suppl 1):S26–S30. doi: 10.1007/BF01645194. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Blaser J., Stone B. B., Groner M. C., Zinner S. H. Comparative study with enoxacin and netilmicin in a pharmacodynamic model to determine importance of ratio of antibiotic peak concentration to MIC for bactericidal activity and emergence of resistance. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1987 Jul;31(7):1054–1060. doi: 10.1128/aac.31.7.1054. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Drusano G. L., Johnson D. E., Rosen M., Standiford H. C. Pharmacodynamics of a fluoroquinolone antimicrobial agent in a neutropenic rat model of Pseudomonas sepsis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1993 Mar;37(3):483–490. doi: 10.1128/aac.37.3.483. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Forrest A., Nix D. E., Ballow C. H., Goss T. F., Birmingham M. C., Schentag J. J. Pharmacodynamics of intravenous ciprofloxacin in seriously ill patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1993 May;37(5):1073–1081. doi: 10.1128/aac.37.5.1073. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Haag R., Lexa P., Werkhäuser I. Artifacts in dilution pharmacokinetic models caused by adherent bacteria. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1986 May;29(5):765–768. doi: 10.1128/aac.29.5.765. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Hyatt J. M., Nix D. E., Schentag J. J. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic activities of ciprofloxacin against strains of Streptococcus pneumoniae, Staphylococcus aureus, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa for which MICs are similar. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1994 Dec;38(12):2730–2737. doi: 10.1128/aac.38.12.2730. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Kraus W. E., Valenstein P. N., Corey G. R. Purulent pericarditis caused by Candida: report of three cases and identification of high-risk populations as an aid to early diagnosis. Rev Infect Dis. 1988 Jan-Feb;10(1):34–41. doi: 10.1093/clinids/10.1.34. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Leggett J. E., Ebert S., Fantin B., Craig W. A. Comparative dose-effect relations at several dosing intervals for beta-lactam, aminoglycoside and quinolone antibiotics against gram-negative bacilli in murine thigh-infection and pneumonitis models. Scand J Infect Dis Suppl. 1990;74:179–184. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. McFarland M. M., Scott E. M., Li Wan Po A. Time-survival studies for quantifying effects of azlocillin and tobramycin on Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1994 Jun;38(6):1271–1276. doi: 10.1128/aac.38.6.1271. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Nightingale C. H. Pharmacokinetic considerations in quinolone therapy. Pharmacotherapy. 1993 Mar-Apr;13(2 Pt 2):34S–38S. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Peloquin C. A., Cumbo T. J., Nix D. E., Sands M. F., Schentag J. J. Evaluation of intravenous ciprofloxacin in patients with nosocomial lower respiratory tract infections. Impact of plasma concentrations, organism, minimum inhibitory concentration, and clinical condition on bacterial eradication. Arch Intern Med. 1989 Oct;149(10):2269–2273. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Sawchuk R. J., Zaske D. E., Cipolle R. J., Wargin W. A., Strate R. G. Kinetic model for gentamicin dosing with the use of individual patient parameters. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1977 Mar;21(3):362–369. doi: 10.1002/cpt1977213362. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Schentag J. J., Nix D. E., Adelman M. H. Mathematical examination of dual individualization principles (I): Relationships between AUC above MIC and area under the inhibitory curve for cefmenoxime, ciprofloxacin, and tobramycin. DICP. 1991 Oct;25(10):1050–1057. doi: 10.1177/106002809102501003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Yeh K. C., Kwan K. C. A comparison of numerical integrating algorithms by trapezoidal, Lagrange, and spline approximation. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1978 Feb;6(1):79–98. doi: 10.1007/BF01066064. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Zabinski R. A., Larsson A. J., Walker K. J., Gilliland S. S., Rotschafer J. C. Elimination of quinolone antibiotic carryover through use of antibiotic-removal beads. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1993 Jun;37(6):1377–1379. doi: 10.1128/aac.37.6.1377. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Zabinski R. A., Vance-Bryan K., Krinke A. J., Walker K. J., Moody J. A., Rotschafer J. C. Evaluation of activity of temafloxacin against Bacteroides fragilis by an in vitro pharmacodynamic system. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1993 Nov;37(11):2454–2458. doi: 10.1128/aac.37.11.2454. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy are provided here courtesy of American Society for Microbiology (ASM)

RESOURCES