Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Definitions
What is the difference between
MDR XDR PDR
1.
Magiorakos, A. P ., A. Srinivasan, et al. (2011). "Multidrug-resistant, extensively drug-resistant and pandrug-resistant bacteria: an international expert proposal for interim standard definitions for acquired resistance." Clin Microbiol Infect.
Definitions
What is the difference between
18351
32/16 16 64 64 128 128 256 64 4 128 128 128 2
18352
32/16 16 64 32 64 64 256 32 4 128 128 128 4
27640
64/32 16 64 32 32 32 256 128 16 128 128 128 256
9447
32/16 16 64 64 64 128 256 16 4 128 128 128 256
11171
32/16 16 64 64 64 128 256 16 4 128 128 64 256
Potential solutions
27640
64/32 16 64 32 32 32 256 128 16 128 128 128 256
18351
32/16 16 64 64 128 128 256 64 4 128 128 128 2
18352
32/16 16 64 32 64 64 256 32 4 128 128 128 4
9447
32/16 16 64 64 64 128 256 16 4 128 128 128 256
11171
32/16 16 64 64 64 128 256 16 4 128 128 64 256
Multi-pronged approach
Judicious use of existing agents Efficient infection control Antimicrobial Stewardship Program Combination therapy
Combination therapy
Often used in clinical practice
TB & HIV Increasingly used in MDR A. baumannii & P. aeruginosa
Synergy: FIC index < 0.5 Additive: FIC index = 1 Antagonism: FIC index > 4
1.
Hsieh MH, Yu CM, Yu VL, Chow JW . Synergy assessed by checkerboard. A critical analysis. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 1993 MayJun;16(4):343-9.
1.
National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. 1999. Methods for Determining Bactericidal Activity of Antimicrobial Agents. Approved Guideline M26-A., vol. 19. NCCLS, Wayne, PA, USA
Limitations of TKS
Clinical relevance
24 hour endpoint At least one of the drugs must be present in a concentration which does not affect the growth curve of the test organism when used alone. 1 Pharmacokinetic factors ignored
Hollow-Fiber System
Drug
bacteria
Distribution
Elimination
Resource management
Labour & Time intensive
1. Antimicrobial Agents & Chemotherapy: Instructions to Authors
Hollow-fiber infection model allowing simulation of human PK in vitro. (Tam, JID 2007)
Aims
To elucidate efficacious antibiotic combinations against PDR A. baumannii
Methods
Time-kill studies (TKS)
Maximal clinically achievable concentrations
Susceptibility results
Antimicrobial Meropenem Polymyxin B Rifampicin 1 Tigecycline
1
Pharmacokinetic Data
SGH 8879 (mg/l) >32 (R) 2 (S) 2 2 (S)
Antimicrobial Simulated FREE drug conc (mg/l) 64 Maximum clinical achievable FREE drug conc (mg/L) 64 (plasma) Corresponding maximum clinical dose 2g q8h over 3h infusion Meropenem
Polymyxin B
2 (plasma)
At least 1 MU q12h
Rifampicin
2 (plasma)
PO 600mg q12h
Tigecycline
2 (tissues)
100mg q12h
There are currently no international standards for rifampicin and susceptibility testing against Acinetobacter baumannii
1. Jaruratanasirikul S, et al. Comparison of the pharmacodynamics of meropenem in patients with ventilator-associated pneumonia following ad ministration by 3-hour infusion or bolus injection. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2005 Apr;49(4):1337-9. 2. Kwa AL, Lim TP, Low JG, Hou J, Kurup A, Prince RA, Tam VH. Pharmacokinetics of polymyxin B1 in patients with multid rug-resistant Gramnegative bacterial infections. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2008 Feb;60(2):163-7. Epub 2007 Oct 4. 3. Gumbo T, Louie A, Deziel MR, Liu W, Parsons LM, Salfinger M, Drusano GL. Concentration-d ependent Mycobacterium tuberculosis killing and prevention of resistance by rifampin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2007 Nov;51(11):3781-8. Epub 2007 Aug 27. 4. Rodvold KA, Gotfried MH, Cwik M, Korth-Brad ley JM, Dukart G, Ellis-Grosse EJ. Serum, tissue and body fluid concentrations of tigecycline after a single 100 mg d ose. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2006 Dec;58(6):1221-9.
Objective
Methods
Bacteria
361 AB strains collected from National Antimicrobial Resistance, Singapore MIC testing (microtitre) 31 PDR AB with OXA-23, OXA-51 b-lactamases & ISAba1OXA complex
Pharmacokinetic Data
Antimicrobial Simulated FREE drug conc (mg/l) 2 (serum trough) 2 (serum peak) 2 (tissue peak) Corresponding maximum clinical dose At least 1 MU q12h PO 600mg q12h 100mg q12h
Combination timekill
Antibiotic synergy:
Kwa AL, Lim TP , Low JG, Hou J, Kurup A, Prince RA, Tam VH. Pharmacokinetics of polymyxin B1 in patients with multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacterial infections. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2008 Feb;60(2):163-7. Epub 2007 Oct 4. Gumbo T, Louie A, Deziel MR, Liu W , Parsons LM, Salfinger M, Drusano GL. Concentration-dependent Mycobacterium tuberculosis killing and prevention of resistance by rifampin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2007 Nov;51(11):3781-8. Epub 2007 Aug 27. Rodvold KA, Gotfried MH, Cwik M, Korth-Bradley JM, Dukart G, Ellis-Grosse EJ. Serum, tissue and body fluid concentrations of tigecycline after a single 100 mg dose. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2006 Dec;58(6):1221-9.
24 hour mean bacteria burden after exposure to various antibiotics alone (1-2 log reductions strains denoted in red)
Tigecycline AB strain 8 Starting inocula 5.22 5.27 5.23 5.03 5.35 5.44 5.30 5.30 5.38 5.25 5.36 5.25 5.26 5.28 5.20 5.33 Mean 8.53 8.60 7.72 3.74 7.94 6.86 8.08 3.40 7.99 8.08 7.97 8.16 8.33 7.17 7.14 6.94 Polymyxin B Mean 7.13 5.72 3.50 9.14 4.94 5.72 8.61 5.11 8.04 5.13 4.02 5.48 3.12 4.84 3.00 4.85 Rifampicin Mean 8.07 7.77 8.69 3.29 5.99 7.83 8.73 7.91 5.56 9.17 8.46 8.97 8.60 6.11 8.58 5.62
Antibiotics
12 16 17 23
1 6 4
2 64 32
0.5 2 1 64 0.5 32
100
25 28 32 41 59 60 69 70 88 91 97
24 hour mean bacteria burden after exposure to various antibiotics alone (1-2 log reduction strains denoted in red)
Tigecycline AB strain 98 102 104 126 128 129 138 170 174 112 8879 14101 3160 13631 48038 Starting inocula 5.54 5.21 5.16 5.20 5.42 5.19 5.38 5.37 5.26 5.18 5.01 5.40 5.17 5.43 5.32 Mean 7.72 6.63 6.84 8.77 8.71 8.84 6.77 7.62 6.35 7.45 5.25 5.38 8.93 7.93 8.90 Polymyxin B Mean 4.31 5.09 5.05 5.59 7.86 4.07 4.40 5.42 3.57 4.73 4.23 5.71 4.75 5.59 4.78
24 hour mean bacteria burden after exposure to various antibiotic combinations (modified bactericidal combinations denoted in red, 1-2 log10 reduction in yellow)
Tigecycline + Rifampicin AB strain 98 102 104 126 128 129 138 170 174 112 8879 14101 3160 13631 48038 Starting inocula 5.54 5.21 5.16 5.20 5.42 5.19 5.38 5.37 5.26 5.18 5.01 5.40 5.17 5.43 5.32 Mean 0.00 5.35 4.48 2.60 5.49 5.93 5.33 8.29 5.59 0.00 0.00 4.27 6.70 5.91 6.03 Polymyxin B + Rifampicin Mean 0.00 0.00 4.85 2.48 2.69 4.73 3.86 3.79 4.65 0.00 1.69 5.27 4.62 5.44 5.44
Time-Kill Results
Polymyxin B alone
6 out of 31 strains showed a reduction of 1-2 log10 CFU/ml in bacterial density compared to baseline at 24 hrs 25 out of 31 strains show insignificant reduction (< 1 log10 CFU/ml) or higher inoculums (approx 8 log10 CFU/ml) at 24 hrs
Time-Kill Results
None of the antibiotics combinations demonstrated modified bactericidal activity against 14 out of 31 strains
Polymyxin + rifampicin, polymyxin +tigecycline demonstrated 1-2 log10 CFU/ml reduction in 5 & 4 strains respectively from baseline at 24hr. Total 6 ( 28,59, 69, 70, 138, 170) Tigecycline + rifampicin is at least additive in 7 strains (23, 104, 174, 14101, 3160, 13631, 48038) Polymyxin + rifampicin is additive to 1 strain (41) Polymyxin alone demonstrated the lowest bacteria burden for 5 strains (23, 174, 3160, 13631, 48038) at 24 hr ~ 3.5-5.6 log10 CFU/ml
Polymyxin B + tigecycline
10 out of 31 strains
Tigecycline + rifampicin
8 out of 31 strains
24 hour mean bacteria burden after exposure to various antibiotic combinations (modified bactericidal combinations denoted in red, 1-2 log10 reduction in yellow)
Tigecycline + Rifampicin AB strain 98 102 104 126 128 129 138 170 174 112 8879 14101 3160 13631 48038 Mean 0.00 5.35 4.48 2.60 5.49 5.93 5.33 8.29 5.59 0.00 0.00 4.27 6.70 5.91 6.03 Polymyxin B + Rifampicin Mean 0.00 0.00 4.85 2.48 2.69 4.73 3.86 3.79 4.65 0.00 1.69 5.27 4.62 5.44 5.44 Polymyxin B + Tigecycline Mean 4.84 4.86 4.57 1.60 0.00 2.28 4.15 3.66 4.63 0.00 0.00 7.16 4.59 5.94 5.41 1
TKS results
Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Modelling of Polymyxin B, Rifampicin and Tigecycline against Pandrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii in an In-vitro Model
T.P. Lim1, T.Y. Tan 2, W. Lee1, Sasikala. S.2, T.T. Tan 1, L.Y. Hsu 3, A.L. Kwa 1 Singapore General Hospital, 2Changi General Hospital. 3National University Hospital
HFIM
2 representative strains used to validate the results in hollow-fiber infection model (HFIM)
TTSH AB 112 SGH AB 8879
HFIM results
HFIM results
Polymyxin B regimen simulated
Polymyxin B resistant isolates plated on drug-supplemented media at 3X MIC.
10 Placebo 8 Log CFU/ml Polymyxin B 1MU q12h Rifampicin 600mg q12h Tigecycline 100mg q12h 4 Polymyxin B 1MU q12h + Rifampicin 600mg q12h 2 Polymyxin B 1MU q12h + Tigecycline 100mg q12h Tigecycline 100mg q12h + Rifampicin 600mg q12h 0 1 2 Days 3 4 5
T rial and Error Countless permutations Different combinations effectiv e for different strains 1 Certain combinations may lead to antagonism2,3
Guided by in-vitro T esting Av oid use of antagonistic combinations Identify effectiv e combinations
1. Lim TP et al. (2009) I Antibiot (Tokyo). 2. Aaro n SD et al, (2000) . Am J Resp ir Crit Care Med 161: 1206-1212. 3. L an g BJ et. al (2000). Am J Resp ir Crit Care Med 162: 2241-2245.
Advantages Gold-standard Measures bactericidal activity Describes extent of kill over 24 hours
Limitations Time-consuming Limits no. of combinations tested Need for repetitive sampling Results likely retrospective in nature
MCBT method Preparation of microtiter plates Preparation of Addition of one or two antibiotic(s) to microtiter well plates Prepared in bulk and stored till required Inoculation of bacteria Inoculation of Bacteria at standard concentration bacteria added More than 80 combinations tested Sampling and Sampling and plating of bacteria plating of bacteria Preliminary results (based on turbid wells) Contents of wells sampled and plated Bacteria Counts Counts enumerated Bacteria based Counts on growth on plates
TK method
Day -1
Day 1
Preparation of drugs /Inoculating bacteria Addition of one/two antibiotics to Preparation of drugs/ flasks Inoculating bacteria Standard concentration of bacteria added Up to 20 flasks tested Sampling and plating Sampling and plating of bacteria bacteria Contents of flasks of sampled and plated
Day 2
TIME-LINE
ACI B AUMAN -- ---- ---- -POLYMYXIN + RIFAMPICIN POLYMYXIN + TIG ECYCLINE POLYMYXIN + AZTREONAM RIFAMPICIN + TIG ECYCLINE MEROPENEM +AZTREONAM AZTREONAM + LEVOFLOXA CIN POLYMYXIN + MEROPENEM MEROPENEM + AZTREONAM RIFAMPICIN + MEROPENEM LEVOFLOXACIN + TIG ECYCLINE
Legend
Collaborators
Changi General Hospital
Dr Tan Thean Yen Singapore General Hospital
Dr Tan Thuan Tong Dr Tan Ban Hock Dr Jenny Low
Dr David Lye
A*STAR (IBN)
A/P Yang Yi-Yan
NUS (Pharmacy) A/P Eric Chan NUS (Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering )
A/P Xie Jianping A/P Leong Tai
Parkw ay Health
Dr AsokKurup
University of Monash
A/P Li Jian .
University of Houston
At least inhibitory No utility
Thank You!