Skip to main content
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy logoLink to Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
. 2014 Oct;58(10):6311–6314. doi: 10.1128/AAC.03572-14

Impact of MIC Range for Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Streptococcus pneumoniae on the Ceftolozane In Vivo Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Target

A J Lepak 1, A Reda 1, K Marchillo 1, J Van Hecker 1, W A Craig 1, D Andes 1,
PMCID: PMC4187960  PMID: 25092700

Abstract

Ceftolozane is a novel cephalosporin with activity against drug-resistant pathogens, including Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Streptococcus pneumoniae. The in vivo investigation reported here tested the limits of this drug against 20 P. aeruginosa and S. pneumoniae isolates across a wide MIC range and defined resistance mechanisms. The times above the MIC (T>MIC) targets for stasis and 1- and 2-log reductions were 31%, 39%, and 42% for P. aeruginosa and 18%, 24%, and 27% for S. pneumoniae, respectively. The 1-log endpoint was achieved for strains with MICs as high as 16 μg/ml.

TEXT

Emerging drug resistance has compromised the utility of our current antimicrobial armamentarium (13). The development of the novel cephalosporin ceftolozane provides a solution for a subset of drug-resistant infections. The spectrum of activity includes two common multidrug-resistant respiratory pathogens, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Streptococcus pneumoniae (49). Initial pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic studies with this drug demonstrate that the time above the MIC, as a percentage (%T>MIC), is the measure linked to efficacy, as with other cephalosporins (10). However, studies exploring the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) target associated with efficacy suggest that the %T>MIC for ceftolozane is lower than that for other drugs within the cephalosporin class (10, 11). Mechanistic investigations suggest that this may be related to the rate of organism killing and perhaps affinity for the penicillin-binding protein (PBP) (10, 12). The goal of the present study was to test the PK/PD limits of ceftolozane efficacy in vivo against P. aeruginosa and S. pneumoniae across a wide MIC range and with a diversity of resistance mechanisms.

Fourteen P. aeruginosa and 6 S. pneumoniae isolates were studied (Table 1). MICs were determined in triplicate according to CLSI guidelines (13). The ceftolozane MIC range for the 20 isolates was 0.125 to 16 μg/ml (i.e., it varied 128-fold). For P. aeruginosa, MICs ranged from 2 to 16 μg/ml, and for S. pneumoniae, they ranged from 0.125 to 16 μg/ml. Strain phenotypes and genotypes included ceftazidime, carbapenem, and ciprofloxacin resistance in P. aeruginosa due to AmpC overproduction and/or OprD mutations and penicillin resistance in four S. pneumoniae strains. The neutropenic-mouse thigh infection model was used for in vivo study of ceftolozane (14). Animals were maintained in accordance with American Association for Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care (AAALAC) criteria. All animal studies were approved by the Animal Research Committee of the William S. Middleton Memorial VA Hospital and the University of Wisconsin. Mice were infected with 105 to 106 CFU of each strain/thigh.

TABLE 1.

Study organisms, phenotypes, genotypes, and ceftolozane MICsa

Organism MIC (μg/ml) Phenotype Genotype
S. pneumoniae
    ATCC 10813 0.125 PSSP NA
    145 0.125 PRSP NA
    146 0.25 PRSP NA
    1329 8 PRSP NA
    1020 8 PRSP NA
    49619 16 PISP NA
P. aeruginosa
    3B 2 NA NA
    2638 2 DOR R, IPM R, MEM R, FEP R, CAZ R, TZP R, CIP R, TOB R NA
    4304A 2 NA NA
    3068 4 DOR R, IPM R, MEM R, FEP R, CAZ S, TZP R, CIP R NA
    3070 4 DOR R, IPM R, MEM R, FEP I, CAZ R, TZP S, CIP R OprD mutant, AmpC hyperproducer
    2757 4 NA AmpC hyperproducer
    2627 4 NA NA
    9139 4 DOR S, IPM S, MEM S, FEP R, CAZ S, TZP R, CIP S, TOB S NA
    3072 4 DOR R, IPM R, MEM R, FEP S, CAZ S, TZP S, CIP R, TOB R OprD mutant, AmpC hyperproducer
    3071 8 DOR R, IPM R, MEM R, FEP R, CAZ R, TZP R, CIP R OprD mutant, AmpC hyperproducer
    823 8 DOR S, IPM S, MEM S, FEP R, CAZ R, TZP R, CIP S, TOB S NA
    26975 8 DOR S, IPM S, MEM S, FEP R, CAZ R, TZP R, CIP S, TOB R NA
    3076 16 DOR R, IPM R, MEM R, FEP I, CAZ R, TZP R, CIP R, TOB S OprD mutant, AmpC hyperproducer
    24530 16 DOR R, IPM R, MEM R, FEP R, CAZ R, TZP R, CIP S, TOB S NA
a

PSSP, penicillin-susceptible Streptococcus pneumoniae; PRSP, penicillin-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae; PISP, penicillin-intermediate Streptococcus pneumoniae; DOR, doripenem; IPM, imipenem; MEM, meropenem; FEP, cefepime; CAZ, ceftazidime; TZP, piperacillin-tazobactam; CIP, ciprofloxacin; TOB, tobramycin; S, susceptible; I, intermediate; R, resistant; NA, not available.

The in vivo fitness of the strains was relatively similar in untreated control mice based upon a similar increase in thigh burden over the 24-h period, 2.94 ± 0.49 log10 CFU/thigh for all isolates. Two hours after thigh infection, ceftolozane was administered subcutaneously for 24 h using 6 or 7 dosing regimens that ranged from 0.39 mg/kg to 800 mg/kg every 6 h. A 1- or 2-log kill was achieved for most strains (Fig. 1A and C). In general, the dose response for each strain was linked to the MIC. More specifically, the drug dose required for efficacy, on a mg/kg basis, increased proportionally as the MIC increased. Efficacy was observed across the resistance genotypes and other drug resistance phenotypes. Plasma pharmacokinetics from our recent study with this infection model were used for %T>MIC determinations (10). Total drug concentrations were used, given the low degree of binding in this animal model (<10%). The sigmoid Emax model was used to analyze the exposure response data. The ceftolozane dose and associated %T>MIC needed to achieve net stasis and 1-log and 2-log kills were calculated and are shown in Table 2. Although the dose level (on a mg/kg basis) associated with these endpoints varied 62- to 138-fold, the %T>MIC varied only 1.3- to 2.5-fold. Thus, the %T>MIC needed for efficacy was relatively similar across the wide range of MICs studied. There was no difference in the PK/PD target T>MIC based on MIC across each species group (P = 0.568). As shown in Fig. 1B and D, regression of the treatment effect data with the %T>MIC measure resulted in a strong relationship, demonstrated by the relatively high coefficients of determination (R2 = 0.80 for P. aeruginosa and 0.85 for S. pneumoniae).

FIG 1.

FIG 1

(A) Dose-response relationship for the 6-hourly dosing of ceftolozane against 6 S. pneumoniae isolates. The dose is expressed as mg/kg/24 h. Each symbol represents the mean log10 CFU/thigh for 2 mice (4 thighs), and the error bars represent standard deviations. Black symbols represent an MIC of 0.125 mg/liter; green, 0.25 mg/liter; blue, 8 mg/liter; and red, 16 mg/liter. The dashed horizontal line represents the burden of organisms in the thighs at the start of therapy. (B) Dose-response relationship for the 6-hourly dosing of ceftolozane against 14 P. aeruginosa isolates. The dose is expressed as mg/kg/24 h. Each symbol represents the mean log10 CFU/thigh for 2 mice (4 thighs), and error bars represent standard deviations. Black symbols represent an MIC of 2 mg/liter; green, 4 mg/liter; blue, 8 mg/liter; and red, 16 mg/liter. The dashed horizontal line represents the burden of organisms in the thighs at the start of therapy. (C) Relationship between the percent time above MIC and change in CFU/thigh over 24 h of treatment with ceftolozane against 6 S. pneumoniae isolates. Each symbol represents the mean log10 CFU/thigh for 2 mice (4 thighs). Black symbols represent an MIC of 0.125 mg/liter; green, 0.25 mg/liter; blue, 8 mg/liter; and red, 16 mg/liter. R2, coefficient of determination. Emax, ED50, and N represent the maximal effect, 50% effect, and slope of the relationship resulting from the sigmoid Emax model, respectively. The dashed horizontal line represents the burden of organisms in thighs at the start of therapy. The solid sigmoid line represents the best fit using the sigmoid Emax model. (D) Relationship between the percent time above MIC and change in CFU/thigh over 24 h of treatment with ceftolozane against 14 P. aeruginosa isolates. Each symbol represents the mean log10 CFU/thigh for 2 mice (4 thighs). Black symbols represent an MIC of 0.125 mg/liter; green, 0.25 mg/liter; blue, 8 mg/liter; and red, 16 mg/liter. R2 represents the coefficient of determination. Emax, ED50, and N represent the maximal effect, 50% effect, and slope of the relationship resulting from the sigmoid Emax model, respectively. The dashed horizontal line represents the burden of organisms in the thighs at the start of therapy. The solid sigmoid line represents the best fit line using the sigmoid Emax model. Black symbols represent an MIC of 2 mg/liter; green, 4 mg/liter; blue, 8 mg/liter; and red, 16 mg/liter.

TABLE 2.

Dose and %T>MICs for stasis, 1-log kill, and 2-log kill for ceftolozane against six S. pneumoniae and 14 P. aeruginosa strains

Organism Static dose (mg/kg/24h) Stasis %T>MIC 1-log kill (mg/kg/24h) 1-log kill %T>MIC 2-log kill (mg/kg/24 h) 2-log kill %T>MICa
S. pneumoniae
    10813 10.3 20.9 18.9 23.8 44.4 27.7
    145 4.44 17.0 8.38 20.0 30.2 25.9
    146 6.02 15.2 20.0 20.8 66.0 26.4
    1329 642 25.4 1,101 30.0 >1,600 NA
    1020 271 17.1 696 26.2 >1,600 NA
    49619 231 12.6 677 22.0 >1,600 NA
    Mean 194 18.1 420 23.8 46.8 26.7
    Median 121 17.1 349 22.9 44.4 26.4
    SD 250 4.52 468 3.75 18.0 0.94
P. aeruginosa
    3B 55.7 15.9 140 20.1 389 27.6
    2638 1,473 40.1 2,538 43.2 4,501 46.4
    4304A 907 36.2 5,029 47.0 >12,800 NA
    3068 717 30.3 1,958 37.8 6,942 44.9
    3070 1,814 37.3 10,228 47.1 >12,800 NA
    2757 1,848 37.5 4,672 42.7 >12,800 NA
    2627 2,040 38.0 7,558 45.4 >12,800 NA
    9139 456 25.6 1,597 36.6 9,242 46.5
    3072 608 28.7 >12,800 >12,800 NA
    3071 780 27.2 11,226 43.7 >12,800 NA
    823 444 21.5 1,847 33.5 >12,800 NA
    26975 974 29.9 3,021 36.3 12,800 44.5
    3076 5,602 35.9 >12,800 >12,800 NA
    24530 3,141 32.6 10,658 39.5 >12,800 NA
    Mean 1,490 31.2 5,039 39.4 6,775 42.0
    Median 940 31.4 3,847 41.1 6,942 44.9
    SD 1,438 6.99 3,921 7.53 4,700 8.11
a

NA, not achieved.

These data both confirm and extend the PK/PD information for ceftolozane. First, the results affirm the importance of the %T>MIC PK/PD measure for ceftolozane (1518). Second, the PD targets identified in the current studies are similar to those noted in a previous in vivo assessment of ceftolozane (10). Specifically, the stasis and killing targets for the Gram-negative group were T>MIC values near 30% and 40%, respectively. These values are considerably lower than for other cephalosporins and may be due to more rapid killing kinetics (10, 19). For example the %T>MIC stasis target for ceftazidime against P. aeruginosa was found to be 40 to 45% in this animal infection model, which is closer to the 1-log kill target for ceftolozane and has also been suggested from clinical PK/PD analyses (17, 20, 21). The inclusion of a wider MIC range, higher MICs, and defined resistance mechanisms in the present studies provides an opportunity to understand the target pathogen “ceiling” for this new compound. The current results suggest that ceftolozane may be a useful treatment option for infections with few alternatives, including those due to strains resistant to other cephalosporins, quinolones, and even carbapenems. Efficacy was observed against organisms with MICs as high as 16 μg/ml. Importantly, human kinetic studies demonstrate that a dosing regimen of 1 g every 8 h produces serum concentrations near this MIC for nearly 50% of the dosing interval (22, 23). Additionally, these data represent the first PK/PD exploration for ceftolozane against pneumococci. Interestingly, comparison of these data with those from studies of Gram-negative organisms show that the %T>MIC target for similar efficacy in S. pneumoniae is nearly half of that for P. aeruginosa (P < 0.001). This PK/PD target difference has been described for other drug-bug combinations, but the mechanistic explanation in this case is unknown (24). The current results verify the promising utility of this new cephalosporin against multidrug-resistant pathogens and across a wide range of ceftolozane MICs. The data should be useful in guiding clinical use and the development of susceptibility breakpoints.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study was funded by a research grant from Cubist Pharmaceuticals.

We thank Ron Jones and JMI for several of the strains used in these studies.

Footnotes

Published ahead of print 4 August 2014

REFERENCES

  • 1.Boucher HW, Talbot GH, Bradley JS, Edwards JE, Gilbert D, Rice LB, Scheld M, Spellberg B, Bartlett J. 2009. Bad bugs, no drugs: no ESKAPE! An update from the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin. Infect. Dis. 48:1–12. 10.1086/595011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Sievert DM, Ricks P, Edwards JR, Schneider A, Patel J, Srinivasan A, Kallen A, Limbago B, Fridkin S, National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) Team and Participating NHSN Facilities 2013. Antimicrobial-resistant pathogens associated with healthcare-associated infections: summary of data reported to the National Healthcare Safety Network at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2009–2010. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 34:1–14. 10.1086/668770 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Klevens RM, Edwards JR, Richards CL, Jr, Horan TC, Gaynes RP, Pollock DA, Cardo DM. 2007. Estimating health care-associated infections and deaths in U.S. hospitals, 2002. Public Health Rep. 122:160–166 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Sader HS, Rhomberg PR, Farrell DJ, Jones RN. 2011. Antimicrobial activity of CXA-101, a novel cephalosporin tested in combination with tazobactam against Enterobacteriaceae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Bacteroides fragilis strains having various resistance phenotypes. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 55:2390–2394. 10.1128/AAC.01737-10 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Bulik CC, Christensen H, Nicolau DP. 2010. In vitro potency of CXA-101, a novel cephalosporin, against Pseudomonas aeruginosa displaying various resistance phenotypes, including multidrug resistance. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 54:557–559. 10.1128/AAC.00912-09 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Livermore DM, Mushtaq S, Ge Y, Warner M. 2009. Activity of cephalosporin CXA-101 (FR264205) against Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Burkholderia cepacia group strains and isolates. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 34:402–406. 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2009.03.021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Moya B, Zamorano L, Juan C, Perez JL, Ge Y, Oliver A. 2010. Activity of a new cephalosporin, CXA-101 (FR264205), against beta-lactam-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa mutants selected in vitro and after antipseudomonal treatment of intensive care unit patients. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 54:1213–1217. 10.1128/AAC.01104-09 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Zamorano L, Juan C, Fernandez-Olmos A, Ge Y, Canton R, Oliver A. 2010. Activity of the new cephalosporin CXA-101 (FR264205) against Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates from chronically-infected cystic fibrosis patients. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 16:1482–1487. 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2010.03130.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Juan C, Zamorano L, Perez JL, Ge Y, Oliver A, Spanish Group for the Study of Pseudomonas, Spanish Network for Research in Infectious Diseases 2010. Activity of a new antipseudomonal cephalosporin, CXA-101 (FR264205), against carbapenem-resistant and multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa clinical strains. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 54:846–851. 10.1128/AAC.00834-09 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Craig WA, Andes DR. 2013. In vivo activities of ceftolozane, a new cephalosporin, with and without tazobactam against Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Enterobacteriaceae, including strains with extended-spectrum beta-lactamases, in the thighs of neutropenic mice. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 57:1577–1582. 10.1128/AAC.01590-12 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Bulik CC, Tessier PR, Keel RA, Sutherland CA, Nicolau DP. 2012. In vivo comparison of CXA-101 (FR264205) with and without tazobactam versus piperacillin-tazobactam using human simulated exposures against phenotypically diverse gram-negative organisms. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 56:544–549. 10.1128/AAC.01752-10 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Moya B, Zamorano L, Juan C, Ge Y, Oliver A. 2010. Affinity of the new cephalosporin CXA-101 to penicillin-binding proteins of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 54:3933–3937. 10.1128/AAC.00296-10 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. 2007. Methods for dilution antimicrobial susceptibility tests for bacteria that grow aerobically; approved standard, 7th ed. CLSI document M7–A7 Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, Wayne PA [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Andes D, Craig WA. 2002. Animal model pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics: a critical review. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 19:261–268. 10.1016/S0924-8579(02)00022-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Craig WA. 1995. Interrelationship between pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in determining dosage regimens for broad-spectrum cephalosporins. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 22:89–96. 10.1016/0732-8893(95)00053-D [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Craig WA, Andes DR. 2008. In vivo pharmacodynamics of ceftobiprole against multiple bacterial pathogens in murine thigh and lung infection models. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 52:3492–3496. 10.1128/AAC.01273-07 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Fantin B, Leggett J, Ebert S, Craig WA. 1991. Correlation between in vitro and in vivo activity of antimicrobial agents against gram-negative bacilli in a murine infection model. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 35:1413–1422. 10.1128/AAC.35.7.1413 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Leggett JE, Fantin B, Ebert S, Totsuka K, Vogelman B, Calame W, Mattie H, Craig WA. 1989. Comparative antibiotic dose-effect relations at several dosing intervals in murine pneumonitis and thigh-infection models. J. Infect. Dis. 159:281–292. 10.1093/infdis/159.2.281 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.VanScoy B, Mendes RE, Nicasio AM, Castanheira M, Bulik CC, Okusanya OO, Bhavnani SM, Forrest A, Jones RN, Friedrich LV, Steenbergen JN, Ambrose PG. 2013. Pharmacokinetics-pharmacodynamics of tazobactam in combination with ceftolozane in an in vitro infection model. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 57:2809–2814. 10.1128/AAC.02513-12 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Muller AE, Punt N, Mouton JW. 2013. Optimal exposures of ceftazidime predict the probability of microbiological and clinical outcome in the treatment of nosocomial pneumonia. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 68:900–906. 10.1093/jac/dks468 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Crandon JL, Schuck VJ, Banevicius MA, Beaudoin ME, Nichols WW, Tanudra MA, Nicolau DP. 2012. Comparative in vitro and in vivo efficacies of human simulated doses of ceftazidime and ceftazidime-avibactam against Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 56:6137–6146. 10.1128/AAC.00851-12 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Ge Y, Whitehouse MJ, Friedland I, Talbot GH. 2010. Pharmacokinetics and safety of CXA-101, a new antipseudomonal cephalosporin, in healthy adult male and female subjects receiving single- and multiple-dose intravenous infusions. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 54:3427–3431. 10.1128/AAC.01753-09 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Miller B, Hershberger E, Benziger D, Trinh M, Friedland I. 2012. Pharmacokinetics and safety of intravenous ceftolozane-tazobactam in healthy adult subjects following single and multiple ascending doses. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 56:3086–3091. 10.1128/AAC.06349-11 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Craig WA. 1998. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic parameters: rationale for antibacterial dosing of mice and men. Clin. Infect. Dis. 26:1–12. 10.1086/516284 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

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

RESOURCES