Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-02T21:28:47.112Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pharmacodynamic Modeling of Risk Factors for Ciprofloxacin Resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Judith M. Hyatt  and
Jerome J. Schentag
Judith M. Hyatt*
Affiliation:
The Clinical Pharmacokinetics Laboratory, Buffalo, New York
Jerome J. Schentag
Affiliation:
The Clinical Pharmacokinetics Laboratory, Buffalo, New York
*
The Clinical Pharmacokinetics Laboratory, Millard Fillmore Health System, 3 Gates Cir, Buffalo, NY 14209
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

To determine risk factors for ciprofloxacin resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

Methods:

Patients with cultures (any site) positive for P aeruginosa, susceptible to ciprofloxacin, between January 1993 and December 1996 were identified using a computerized database. Factors predictive of emergence of ciprofloxacin resistance in P aeruginosa strains isolated from the same cultured site, within 21 days of the initial culture, were determined. Factors considered included length of stay prior to initial P aeruginosa culture, isolation site, initial minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC), antibiotic area under the 24-hour concentration curve (AUC24), total area under the 24-hour inhibitory concentration curve ([AUIC24] AUC24/MIC summed for all active drugs), antibiotic(s) used as dichotomous variables (yes/no), and use of monotherapy or combination therapy.

Results:

Of 635 patients, 43 (7%) subsequently had ciprofloxacin-resistant P aeruginosa isolated. Four significantly differing patient groups were identified: group 1, P aeruginosa isolates from all sites other than the respiratory tract, treated with any drugs; group 2, respiratory tract isolates treated with drugs other than ciprofloxacin; group 3, respiratory tract isolates treated with ciprofloxacin at AUIC24 > 110 (μg·h/mL)/μg/mL; and group 4, respiratory tract isolates treated with ciprofloxacin at AUIC24 ≤110 (μg·h/mL)/μg/mL. The observed percentage resistant was a continuous function of prior length of stay in all four groups. Respiratory tract isolates had higher rates of ciprofloxacin resistance (12%) than isolates from other infection sites (4%). Respiratory tract isolates exposed to ciprofloxacin at AUIC24 ≤110 (μg·h/mL)/μg/mL had the highest resistance (17%). At AUIC24 >110 (μg·h/mL)/μg/mL, resistance was decreased to 11%, a rate similar to that seen in respiratory isolates not exposed to ciprofloxacin (7%).

Conclusions:

Application of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic principles to dosing of ciprofloxacin may reduce the risk of ciprofloxacin resistance to the level seen in isolates exposed to other agents.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 21 , Issue S1 , January 2000 , pp. S9 - S11
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.American Society for Microbiology. Report of the ASM Task Force on Antibiotic Resistance. Antimkrob Agents Chemother 1995;39:(suppl 5):1–23.Google Scholar
2.Chow, JW, Fine, MJ, Shlaes, DM, Quinn, JP, Hooper, DC, Johnson, MP, et al. Enterobacter bacteremia: clinical features and emergence of antibiotic resistance during therapy. Ann Intern Med 1991;115:585–590.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Cohen, MT. Epidemiology of drug resistance: implications for a post-antimicrobial era. Science 1992;257:1050–1055.Google Scholar
4.McGowan, JE Jr. Antimicrobial resistance in hospital organisms and its relation to antibiotic use. Rev Infect Dis 1983;5:1033–1048.Google Scholar
5.Goss, TF, Forrest, A, Nix, DE, Ballow, CH, Birmingham, MC, Cumbo, TJ, et al. Mathematical examination of dual individualization principles, II: the rate of bacterial eradication at the same area under the inhibitory curve is more rapid for ciprofloxacin than for cefrnenoxime. Ann Fharmacother 1994;28:863–868.Google Scholar
6.Forrest, A, Nix, DE, Ballow, CH, Goss, TF, Birmingham, MC, Schentag, JJ. Pharmacodynamics of intravenous ciprofloxacin in seriously ill patients. Antimkrob Agents Chemother 1993;37:1073–1081.Google Scholar
7.Hyatt, JM, Luzier, AB, Forrest, A, Ballow, CH, Schentag, JJ. Modeling the response of pneumonia to antimicrobial therapy. Antimkrob Agents Chemother 1997;41:1269–1274.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Hyatt, JM, McKinnon, PS, Zimmer, GS, Schentag, JJ. The importance of pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic surrogate markers to outcome. Focus on antibacterial agents. Clin Pharmacokinet 1995;28:143–160.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Thomas, JK, Forrest, A, Bhavnani, SM, Hyatt, JM, Cheng, A, Ballow, CH, et al. Pharmacodynamic evaluation of factors associated with the development of bacterial resistance in acutely ill patients during therapy. Antimkrob Agents Chemother 1998;42:521–527.Google Scholar
10.Lorian, V. Susceptibility to antibiotics. In: Lorian, V, ed. Antibiotics in Laboratory Medicine. 4th ed. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins; 1996:1083–1085.Google Scholar
11.Lorian, V. Antimicrobial concentrations in lung tissue. In: Lorian, V, ed. Antibiotics in Laboratory Medicine. 4th ed. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins; 1996:870.Google Scholar