Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic assessment of the in-vivo efficacy of imipenem alone or in combination with amikacin for the treatment of experimental multiresistant Acinetobacter baumannii pneumonia

A guinea-pig pneumonia model involving imipenem-susceptible and imipenem-resistant strains of Acinetobacter baumannii was developed to assess the in-vitro and in-vivo activities of imipenem, alone or in combination with amikacin, and the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic parameters. Serum levels w...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inClinical microbiology and infection Vol. 11; no. 4; pp. 319 - 325
Main Authors Bernabeu-Wittel, M., Pichardo, C., García-Curiel, A., Pachón-Ibáñez, M.E., Ibáñez-Martínez, J., Jiménez-Mejías, M.E., Pachón, J.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Oxford, UK Elsevier Ltd 01.04.2005
Blackwell Science Ltd
Blackwell
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:A guinea-pig pneumonia model involving imipenem-susceptible and imipenem-resistant strains of Acinetobacter baumannii was developed to assess the in-vitro and in-vivo activities of imipenem, alone or in combination with amikacin, and the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic parameters. Serum levels were measured by bioassay (imipenem) or immunoassay (amikacin), followed by calculation of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic parameters (Cmax, AUC, t1/2, Cmax/MIC, AUC/MIC, and Δt /MIC). In-vivo efficacy was evaluated by comparing bacterial counts in the lungs of treatment groups with end-of-therapy controls by anova and post-hoc tests. Decreases in the Cmax (13.4%), AUC (13%), t1/2 (25%) and Δt/MIC (11.8–32.2%) of imipenem were observed when it was administered with amikacin, compared with administration of imipenem alone. Similarly, decreases in the Cmax (34.5%), AUC (11.6%), Cmax/MIC (34.5%) and AUC/MIC (11.7%) of amikacin were observed when it was administered with imipenem. Bacterial counts in lungs were reduced by imipenem (p 0.004) with the imipenem-susceptible strain, and by amikacin (p 0.001) with the imipenem-resistant strain. The combination of imipenem plus amikacin was inferior to imipenem alone with the imipenem-susceptible strain (p 0.01), despite their in-vitro synergy, and was inferior to amikacin alone with the imipenem-resistant strain (p < 0.0001). In summary, combined use of imipenem with amikacin was less efficacious than monotherapy, probably because of a drug–drug interaction that resulted in decreased pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic parameters for both antimicrobial agents.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:1198-743X
1469-0691
DOI:10.1111/j.1469-0691.2005.01095.x