Skip to main content
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy logoLink to Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
. 1997 Feb;41(2):352–356. doi: 10.1128/aac.41.2.352

Relationships between antimicrobial effect and area under the concentration-time curve as a basis for comparison of modes of antibiotic administration: meropenem bolus injections versus continuous infusions.

A A Firsov 1, H Mattie 1
PMCID: PMC163713  PMID: 9021191

Abstract

In comparative studies of different modes of administration (MAs) simulated in in vitro dynamic models, only one dose of antibiotic is usually mimicked. Such an experimental design can provide a prediction of the antimicrobial effect (AME) of a given combination of drug, clinical isolate, and infection site, but may be inappropriate for accurate comparison of MAs. An alternative design providing comparison of different MAs with various antibiotic doses in a wide range and with evaluation of the respective relationships between AME and the AUC was proposed and examined. Two series of meropenem pharmacokinetic profiles, i.e., monoexponentially decreasing concentrations (bolus doses) and constant concentrations (6-h continuous infusion), were in vitro simulated. The simulated initial concentrations (Co[from 0.62 to 48 micrograms/ml]) and steady-state concentrations (Css[from 0.016 to 8 micrograms/ml]) were chosen to provide similar AUC for 0 to 6 h (AUC0-6) ranges for both MAs (from 0.070 to 50.0 micrograms.h/ml and from 0.09 to 48.0 micrograms.h/ml, respectively). The AME of meropenem on Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 25923 (MIC, 0.06 micrograms/ml) was determined at each time (t) point as a difference (E) between the logarithms of viable counts (N) in the control cultures without antibiotic (NC) and in cultures exposed to antibiotics (NA). Time courses of E observed at different Co of Css levels were compared in terms of the areas under the E-t curves (ABBCt). The finite values of the ABBCt observed by the end of the 6 -h observation period, which are equivalent to the area between bacterial count-time curves observed in the absence and presence of antibiotic (ABBC), were plotted versus the respective AUCs produced by each of the MAs. The ABBC versus AUC curves had a similar pattern: a plateau achieved at high AUCs followed by a steep rise in ABBC at relatively low AUCs was inherent in both of the MAs. The superiority of bolus dosing over the infusions could be documented only for meropenem concentrations below the MIC. At higher Co or Css (i.e., at an AUC of > or = 0.4 micrograms.h/ml), the ABBC versus AUC curves plotted for each of the MAs could practically be superimposed. On the whole, both MAs appeared to be equiefficient in terms of the ABBC. These results suggest that AUC analysis of the AME may be a useful tool for comparing different MAs. Such comparative studies should be designed in a manner that provides the use of similar AUC ranges, since the AUC may be considered as a common pharmacokinetic denominator in comparing one MA or dosing regimen to another.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (244.9 KB).

Selected References

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

  1. Bax R. P., Bastain W., Featherstone A., Wilkinson D. M., Hutchison M., Haworth S. J. The pharmacokinetics of meropenem in volunteers. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1989 Sep;24 (Suppl A):311–320. doi: 10.1093/jac/24.suppl_a.311. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Cappelletty D. M., Kang S. L., Palmer S. M., Rybak M. J. Pharmacodynamics of ceftazidime administered as continuous infusion or intermittent bolus alone and in combination with single daily-dose amikacin against Pseudomonas aeruginosa in an in vitro infection model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1995 Aug;39(8):1797–1801. doi: 10.1128/aac.39.8.1797. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Drusano G. L., Hutchison M. The pharmacokinetics of meropenem. Scand J Infect Dis Suppl. 1995;96:11–16. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Firsov A. A., Chernykh V. M., Navashin S. M. Quantitative analysis of antimicrobial effect kinetics in an in vitro dynamic model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1990 Jul;34(7):1312–1317. doi: 10.1128/aac.34.7.1312. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Firsov A. A. In vitro simulated pharmacokinetics profiles: forecasting antibiotic optimal dosage. Eur J Drug Metab Pharmacokinet. 1991;Spec No 3:406–409. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Firsov A. A., Saverino D., Savarino D., Ruble M., Gilbert D., Manzano B., Medeiros A. A., Zinner S. H. Predictors of effect of ampicillin-sulbactam against TEM-1 beta-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli in an in vitro dynamic model: enzyme activity versus MIC. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1996 Mar;40(3):734–738. doi: 10.1128/aac.40.3.734. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Gerber A. U., Wiprächtiger P., Stettler-Spichiger U., Lebek G. Constant infusions vs. intermittent doses of gentamicin against Pseudomonas aeruginosa in vitro. J Infect Dis. 1982 Apr;145(4):554–560. doi: 10.1093/infdis/145.4.554. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Harrison M. P., Moss S. R., Featherstone A., Fowkes A. G., Sanders A. M., Case D. E. The disposition and metabolism of meropenem in laboratory animals and man. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1989 Sep;24 (Suppl A):265–277. doi: 10.1093/jac/24.suppl_a.265. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Keil S., Wiedemann B. Mathematical corrections for bacterial loss in pharmacodynamic in vitro dilution models. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1995 May;39(5):1054–1058. doi: 10.1128/aac.39.5.1054. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Kelly H. C., Hutchison M., Haworth S. J. A comparison of the pharmacokinetics of meropenem after administration by intravenous injection over 5 min and intravenous infusion over 30 min. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1995 Jul;36 (Suppl A):35–41. doi: 10.1093/jac/36.suppl_a.35. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Kunst M. W., Mattie H. Probenecid and the antibacterial activity of cephradine in vivo. J Infect Dis. 1978 Jun;137(6):830–834. doi: 10.1093/infdis/137.6.830. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Maggiolo F., Taras A., Frontespezi S., Bottari F., Legnani M. C., Suter F. Bactericidal activity of two different dosage regimens of imipenem in an in-vitro dynamic model. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1993 Aug;32(2):295–300. doi: 10.1093/jac/32.2.295. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Marchbanks C. R., McKiel J. R., Gilbert D. H., Robillard N. J., Painter B., Zinner S. H., Dudley M. N. Dose ranging and fractionation of intravenous ciprofloxacin against Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus in an in vitro model of infection. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1993 Sep;37(9):1756–1763. doi: 10.1128/aac.37.9.1756. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Mattie H., Goslings W. R., Noach E. L. Cloxacillin and nafcillin: serum binding and its relationship to antibacterial effect in mice. J Infect Dis. 1973 Aug;128(2):170–177. doi: 10.1093/infdis/128.2.170. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. McGrath B. J., Lamp K. C., Rybak M. J. Pharmacodynamic effects of extended dosing intervals of imipenem alone and in combination with amikacin against Pseudomonas aeruginosa in an in vitro model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1993 Sep;37(9):1931–1937. doi: 10.1128/aac.37.9.1931. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. McLean A. J., IoannidesDemos L. L., Li S. C., Bastone E. B., Spicer W. J. Bactericidal effect of gentamicin peak concentration provides a rationale for administration of bolus doses. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1993 Aug;32(2):301–305. doi: 10.1093/jac/32.2.301. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Moffie B. G., Hoogeterp J. J., Lim T., Douwes-Idema A. E., Mattie H. Effectiveness of netilmicin and tobramycin against Pseudomonas aeruginosa in vitro and in an experimental tissue infection in mice. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1993 Mar;31(3):403–411. doi: 10.1093/jac/31.3.403. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Mouton J. W., Michel M. F. Pharmacokinetics of meropenem in serum and suction blister fluid during continuous and intermittent infusion. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1991 Dec;28(6):911–918. doi: 10.1093/jac/28.6.911. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Mouton J. W., den Hollander J. G. Killing of Pseudomonas aeruginosa during continuous and intermittent infusion of ceftazidime in an in vitro pharmacokinetic model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1994 May;38(5):931–936. doi: 10.1128/aac.38.5.931. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Silley P., Monsey D., Harris A. M. Model simulation of a single oral dose of cefuroxime axetil and the related in-vitro kill kinetics against four bacterial species. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1990 Jan;25(1):83–90. doi: 10.1093/jac/25.1.83. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Strayer A. H., Gilbert D. H., Pivarnik P., Medeiros A. A., Zinner S. H., Dudley M. N. Pharmacodynamics of piperacillin alone and in combination with tazobactam against piperacillin-resistant and -susceptible organisms in an in vitro model of infection. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1994 Oct;38(10):2351–2356. doi: 10.1128/aac.38.10.2351. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. White C. A., Toothaker R. D., Smith A. L., Slattery J. T. In vitro evaluation of the determinants of bactericidal activity of ampicillin dosing regimens against Escherichia coli. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1989 Jul;33(7):1046–1051. doi: 10.1128/aac.33.7.1046. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

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

RESOURCES