A model-based analysis of pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) indices of avibactam against Pseudomonas aeruginosa

Adequacy of the Dosing and Infusion Time of Ceftazidime/Avibactam for the Treatment of Gram-Negative Bacterial Infections: A PK/PD Simulation Study

Introduction

Recent studies suggested the potential benefits of extended infusion times to optimize the treatment efficacy of ceftazidime/avibactam, which indicated that the current pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) target may not be sufficient, especially for severe infections. The purpose of this study is to assess the adequacy of dosing strategies and infusion durations of ceftazidime/avibactam when applying higher PK/PD targets.

Methods

This study utilized published PK parameters to conduct Monte Carlo simulations. Different dosages including the recommended regimen based on renal function were simulated and evaluated by the probability of target attainment (PTA) and cumulative fraction of response (CFR). Different PK/PD targets were set for ceftazidime and avibactam. MIC distributions from various sources were used to calculate the CFR.

Results

Multiple PK/PD targets have been set in this study, All recommended dosage could easily achieve the target of 50%fT ≥ MIC (ceftazidime) and 50%fT ≥ CT=1.0 mg/L (avibactam). However, for severe infection patients with normal renal function and augmented renal clearance at the recommended dosage (2000 mg/500 mg, every 8 hours), the infusion duration needs to be extended to 3 hours and 4 hours to achieve the targets of 100%fT ≥ MIC and 100%fT ≥ CT=1.0 mg/L. Only continuous infusion at higher dosages achieved 100%fT ≥ 4×MIC and 100%fT ≥ CT=4.0 mg/L targets to all currently recommended regimens. According to the varying MIC distributions, higher concentrations are needed for Pseudomonas aeruginosa, with the attainment rates vary across different regions.

Conclusion

The current recommended dosing regimen of ceftazidime/avibactam is insufficient for severe infection patients, and continuous infusion is suggested.

What are the optimal pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic targets for β-lactamase inhibitors? A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) indices are widely used for the selection of optimum antibiotic doses. For β-lactam antibiotics, fT>MIC, best relates antibiotic exposure to efficacy and is widely used to guide the dosing of β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor (BLI) combinations, often without considering any PK/PD exposure requirements for BLIs.

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review aimed to describe the PK/PD exposure requirements of BLIs for optimal microbiological efficacy when used in combination with β-lactam antibiotics.

METHODS

Literature was searched online through PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus and Cochrane Library databases up to 5 June 2023. Studies that report the PK/PD index and threshold concentration of BLIs approved for clinical use were included. Narrative data synthesis was carried out to assimilate the available evidence.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies were included. The PK/PD index that described the efficacy of BLIs was fT>CT for tazobactam, avibactam and clavulanic acid and fAUC0-24/MIC for relebactam and vaborbactam. The optimal magnitude of the PK/PD index is variable for each BLI based on the companion β-lactam antibiotics, type of bacteria and β-lactamase enzyme gene transcription levels.

CONCLUSIONS

The PK/PD index that describes the efficacy of BLIs and the exposure measure required for their efficacy is variable among inhibitors; as a result, it is difficult to make clear inference on what the optimum index is. Further PK/PD profiling of BLI, using preclinical infection models that simulate the anticipated mode(s) of clinical use, is warranted to streamline the exposure targets for use in the optimization of dosing regimens.

All Roads Lead to Rome: Enhancing the Probability of Target Attainment with Different Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Modelling Approaches

In light of rising antimicrobial resistance and a decreasing number of antibiotics with novel modes of action, it is of utmost importance to accelerate development of novel treatment options. One aspect of acceleration is to understand pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) of drugs and to assess the probability of target attainment (PTA). Several in vitro and in vivo methods are deployed to determine these parameters, such as time-kill-curves, hollow-fiber infection models or animal models. However, to date the use of in silico methods to predict PK/PD and PTA is increasing. Since there is not just one way to perform the in silico analysis, we embarked on reviewing for which indications and how PK and PK/PD models as well as PTA analysis has been used to contribute to the understanding of the PK and PD of a drug. Therefore, we examined four recent examples in more detail, namely ceftazidime-avibactam, omadacycline, gepotidacin and zoliflodacin as well as cefiderocol. Whereas the first two compound classes mainly relied on the ‘classical’ development path and PK/PD was only deployed after approval, cefiderocol highly profited from in silico techniques that led to its approval. Finally, this review shall highlight current developments and possibilities to accelerate drug development, especially for anti-infectives.

The primary pharmacology of ceftazidime/avibactam: resistance in vitro

This article reviews resistance to ceftazidime/avibactam as an aspect of its primary pharmacology, linked thematically with recent reviews of the basic in vitro and in vivo translational biology of the combination (J Antimicrob Chemother 2022; 77: 2321-40 and 2341-52). In Enterobacterales or Pseudomonas aeruginosa, single-step exposures to 8×  MIC of ceftazidime/avibactam yielded frequencies of resistance from <∼0.5 × 10-9 to 2-8 × 10-9, depending on the host strain and the β-lactamase harboured. β-Lactamase structural gene mutations mostly affected the avibactam binding site through changes in the Ω-loop: e.g. Asp179Tyr (D179Y) in KPC-2. Other mutations included ones proposed to reduce the permeability to ceftazidime and/or avibactam through changes in outer membrane structure, up-regulated efflux, or both. The existence, or otherwise, of cross-resistance between ceftazidime/avibactam and other antibacterial agents was also reviewed as a key element of the preclinical primary pharmacology of the new agent. Cross-resistance between ceftazidime/avibactam and other β-lactam-based antibacterial agents was caused by MBLs. Mechanism-based cross-resistance was not observed between ceftazidime/avibactam and fluoroquinolones, aminoglycosides or colistin. A low level of general co-resistance to ceftazidime/avibactam was observed in MDR Enterobacterales and P. aeruginosa. For example, among 2821 MDR Klebsiella spp., 3.4% were resistant to ceftazidime/avibactam, in contrast to 0.07% of 8177 non-MDR isolates. Much of this was caused by possession of MBLs. Among 1151 MDR, XDR and pandrug-resistant isolates of P. aeruginosa from the USA, 11.1% were resistant to ceftazidime/avibactam, in contrast to 3.0% of 7452 unselected isolates. In this case, the decreased proportion susceptible was not due to MBLs.

The primary pharmacology of ceftazidime/avibactam: in vivo translational biology and pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics (PK/PD)

This review describes the translational in vivo and non-clinical pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics (PK/PD) research that supported clinical trialling and subsequently licensing approval of ceftazidime/avibactam, a new β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor combination aimed at the treatment of infections by Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. The review thematically follows on from the co-published article, Nichols et al. (J Antimicrob Chemother 2022; dkac171). Avibactam protected ceftazidime in animal models of infection with ceftazidime-resistant, β-lactamase-producing bacteria. For example, a single subcutaneous dose of ceftazidime at 1024 mg/kg yielded little effect on the growth of ceftazidime-resistant, blaKPC-2-carrying Klebsiella pneumoniae in the thighs of neutropenic mice (final counts of 4 × 108 to 8 × 108 cfu/thigh). In contrast, co-administration of avibactam in a 4:1 ratio (ceftazidime:avibactam) was bactericidal in the same model (final counts of 2 × 104 to 3 × 104 cfu/thigh). In a rat abdominal abscess model, therapy with ceftazidime or ceftazidime/avibactam (4:1 w/w) against blaKPC-2-positive K. pneumoniae resulted in 9.3 versus 3.3 log cfu/abscess, respectively, after 52 h. With respect to PK/PD, in Monte Carlo simulations, attainment of unbound drug exposure targets (ceftazidime fT>8 mg/L and avibactam fT>1 mg/L, each for 50% of the dosing interval) for the labelled dose of ceftazidime/avibactam (2 and 0.5 g, respectively, q8h by 2 h IV infusion), including dose adjustments for patients with impaired renal function, ranged between 94.8% and 99.6% of patients, depending on the infection modelled.

Application of Semi-Mechanistic Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Model in Antimicrobial Resistance

Antimicrobial resistance is a major public health issue. The pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) model is an essential tool to optimize dosage regimens and alleviate the emergence of resistance. The semi-mechanistic PK/PD model is a mathematical quantitative tool to capture the relationship between dose, exposure, and response, in terms of the mechanism. Understanding the different resistant mechanisms of bacteria to various antibacterials and presenting this as mathematical equations, the semi-mechanistic PK/PD model can capture and simulate the progress of bacterial growth and the variation in susceptibility. In this review, we outline the bacterial growth model and antibacterial effect model, including different resistant mechanisms, such as persisting resistance, adaptive resistance, and pre-existing resistance, of antibacterials against bacteria. The application of the semi-mechanistic PK/PD model, such as the determination of PK/PD breakpoints, combination therapy, and dosage optimization, are also summarized. Additionally, it is important to integrate the PD effect, such as the inoculum effect and host response, in order to develop a comprehensive mechanism model. In conclusion, with the semi-mechanistic PK/PD model, the dosage regimen can be reasonably determined, which can suppress bacterial growth and resistance development.

Predicting Antimicrobial Activity at the Target Site: Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Indices versus Time-Kill Approaches

Antibiotic dosing strategies are generally based on systemic drug concentrations. However, drug concentrations at the infection site drive antimicrobial effect, and efficacy predictions and dosing strategies should be based on these concentrations. We set out to review different translational pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) approaches from a target site perspective. The most common approach involves calculating the probability of attaining animal-derived PK/PD index targets, which link PK parameters to antimicrobial susceptibility measures. This approach is time efficient but ignores some aspects of the shape of the PK profile and inter-species differences in drug clearance and distribution, and provides no information on the PD time-course. Time–kill curves, in contrast, depict bacterial response over time. In vitro dynamic time–kill setups allow for the evaluation of bacterial response to clinical PK profiles, but are not representative of the infection site environment. The translational value of in vivo time–kill experiments, conversely, is limited from a PK perspective. Computational PK/PD models, especially when developed using both in vitro and in vivo data and coupled to target site PK models, can bridge translational gaps in both PK and PD. Ultimately, clinical PK and experimental and computational tools should be combined to tailor antibiotic treatment strategies to the site of infection.

Aztreonam/avibactam effect on pharmacodynamic indices for mutant selection of Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae harbouring serine- and New Delhi metallo-β-lactamases

OBJECTIVES

Ceftazidime/avibactam is not active against MBL-producing bacteria. Combining ceftazidime/avibactam or avibactam with aztreonam can counter the resistance of MBL-producing Enterobacterales. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the addition of avibactam could reduce or close the mutant selection window (MSW) of aztreonam in Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae harbouring MBLs; MSW is a pharmacodynamic (PD) parameter for the selection of emergent resistant mutants.

METHODS

In vitro susceptibility of 19 clinical isolates to ceftazidime/avibactam, aztreonam alone, and in co-administration (aztreonam/ceftazidime/avibactam and aztreonam/avibactam) was determined, as well as the mutant prevention concentration (MPC). The fraction of time within 24 h that the free drug concentration was within the MSW (fTMSW) and the fraction of time that the free drug concentration was above the MPC (fT>MPC) in both plasma and epithelial lining fluid (ELF) were determined from simulations of 10 000 profiles. The joint PTA was used to derive a joint cumulative fraction of response (CFR).

RESULTS

All isolates were resistant to ceftazidime/avibactam or aztreonam. Combining aztreonam and avibactam or ceftazidime/avibactam resulted in synergistic bactericidal activities against all isolates. Synergism was primarily due to the aztreonam/avibactam combination. For aztreonam/avibactam dosing regimens evaluated in clinical trials, fT>MPC values were >90% and >80%, whereas fTMSW measures were <10% and <20% in plasma and ELF, respectively. The CFR was 100% for aztreonam/avibactam against the collection of clinical isolates.

CONCLUSIONS

Effective antimicrobial combination optimized the PD parameters measuring selection for emergent mutants by increasing fT>MPC and reducing fTMSW.

Pharmacodynamic evaluation of suppression of in vitro resistance in Acinetobacter baumannii strains using polymyxin B-based combination therapy

The emergence of polymyxin resistance in Gram-negative bacteria infections has motivated the use of combination therapy. This study determined the mutant selection window (MSW) of polymyxin B alone and in combination with meropenem and fosfomycin against A. baumannii strains belonging to clonal lineages I and III. To evaluate the inhibition of in vitro drug resistance, we investigate the MSW-derived pharmacodynamic indices associated with resistance to polymyxin B administrated regimens as monotherapy and combination therapy, such as the percentage of each dosage interval that free plasma concentration was within the MSW (%T_MSW) and the percentage of each dosage interval that free plasma concentration exceeded the mutant prevention concentration (%T_>MPC). The MSW of polymyxin B varied between 1 and 16 µg/mL for polymyxin B-susceptible strains. The triple combination of polymyxin B with meropenem and fosfomycin inhibited the polymyxin B-resistant subpopulation in meropenem-resistant isolates and polymyxin B plus meropenem as a double combination sufficiently inhibited meropenem-intermediate, and susceptible strains. T_>MPC 90% was reached for polymyxin B in these combinations, while %T_MSW was 0 against all strains. T_MSW for meropenem and fosfomycin were also reduced. Effective antimicrobial combinations significantly reduced MSW. The MSW-derived pharmacodynamic indices can be used for the selection of effective combination regimen to combat the polymyxin B-resistant strain.

Model-Informed Drug Development for Anti-Infectives: State of the Art and Future

Model-informed drug development (MIDD) has a long and rich history in infectious diseases. This review describes foundational principles of translational anti-infective pharmacology, including choice of appropriate measures of exposure and pharmacodynamic (PD) measures, patient subpopulations, and drug-drug interactions. Examples are presented for state-of-the-art, empiric, mechanistic, interdisciplinary, and real-world evidence MIDD applications in the development of antibacterials (review of minimum inhibitory concentration-based models, mechanism-based pharmacokinetic/PD (PK/PD) models, PK/PD models of resistance, and immune response), antifungals, antivirals, drugs for the treatment of global health infectious diseases, and medical countermeasures. The degree of adoption of MIDD practices across the infectious diseases field is also summarized. The future application of MIDD in infectious diseases will progress along two planes; "depth" and "breadth" of MIDD methods. "MIDD depth" refers to deeper incorporation of the specific pathogen biology and intrinsic and acquired-resistance mechanisms; host factors, such as immunologic response and infection site, to enable deeper interrogation of pharmacological impact on pathogen clearance; clinical outcome and emergence of resistance from a pathogen; and patient and population perspective. In particular, improved early assessment of the emergence of resistance potential will become a greater focus in MIDD, as this is poorly mitigated by current development approaches. "MIDD breadth" refers to greater adoption of model-centered approaches to anti-infective development. Specifically, this means how various MIDD approaches and translational tools can be integrated or connected in a systematic way that supports decision making by key stakeholders (sponsors, regulators, and payers) across the entire development pathway.

The Genomic Basis of Rapid Adaptation to Antibiotic Combination Therapy in Pseudomonas aeruginosa

Combination therapy is a common antibiotic treatment strategy that aims at minimizing the risk of resistance evolution in several infectious diseases. Nonetheless, evidence supporting its efficacy against the nosocomial opportunistic pathogen Pseudomonas aeruginosa remains elusive. Identification of the possible evolutionary paths to resistance in multidrug environments can help to explain treatment outcome. For this purpose, we here performed whole-genome sequencing of 127 previously evolved populations of P. aeruginosa adapted to sublethal doses of distinct antibiotic combinations and corresponding single-drug treatments, and experimentally characterized several of the identified variants. We found that alterations in the regulation of efflux pumps are the most favored mechanism of resistance, regardless of the environment. Unexpectedly, we repeatedly identified intergenic variants in the adapted populations, often with no additional mutations and usually associated with genes involved in efflux pump expression, possibly indicating a regulatory function of the intergenic regions. The experimental analysis of these variants demonstrated that the intergenic changes caused similar increases in resistance against single and multidrug treatments as those seen for efflux regulatory gene mutants. Surprisingly, we could find no substantial fitness costs for a majority of these variants, most likely enhancing their competitiveness toward sensitive cells, even in antibiotic-free environments. We conclude that the regulation of efflux is a central target of antibiotic-mediated selection in P. aeruginosa and that, importantly, changes in intergenic regions may represent a usually neglected alternative process underlying bacterial resistance evolution, which clearly deserves further attention in the future.

Physiologically based pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic evaluation of meropenem plus fosfomycin in paediatrics

AIMS

The objective of the current study was to evaluate paediatric dosing regimens for meropenem plus fosfomycin that generate sufficient coverage against multidrug-resistant bacteria.

METHODS

The physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models of meropenem and fosfomycin were developed from previously published pharmacokinetic studies in five populations: healthy subjects of Japanese origin, and healthy adults, geriatric, paediatric and renally impaired of primarily Caucasian origins. Pharmacodynamic (PD) analyses were carried out by evaluating dosing regimens that achieved a ≥90% joint probability of target attainment (PTA), which was defined as the minimum of the marginal probabilities to achieve the target PD index of each antibiotic. For meropenem, the percentage of time over a 24-hour period wherein the free drug concentration was above the minimum inhibitory concentration (fT > MIC) of at least 40% was its PD target. The fosfomycin PD index was described by fAUC/MIC of at least 40.8.

RESULTS

For coadministration consisting of 20 mg/kg meropenem q8h as a 3-hour infusion and 35 mg/kg fosfomycin q8h also as a 3-hour infusion in a virtual paediatric population between 1 month and 12 years of age with normal renal function and a corresponding body weight between 3 and 50 kg, a joint PTA ≥ 90% is achieved at MICs of 16 and 64 mg/L for meropenem and fosfomycin coadministration, respectively, against Klebsiella pneumoniae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

CONCLUSION

The current study identified potentially effective paediatric dosing regimens for meropenem plus fosfomycin coadministration against multidrug-resistant bacteria.

Pharmacodynamic Attainment of the Synergism of Meropenem and Fosfomycin Combination against Pseudomonas aeruginosa Producing Metallo-β-Lactamase

Fosfomycin combined with other antimicrobials has shown good efficacy against multidrug-resistant (MDR) bacteria in both in vitro and clinical studies; however, the activity of fosfomycin combined with other antimicrobials against metallo-β-lactamase (MBL)-producing Pseudomonas aeruginosa strains has not been tested. The objective of this study was to determine the synergism and optimal intravenous dosing regimens of fosfomycin with meropenem against MDR and MBL-producing P. aeruginosa strains. The MICs of both antimicrobials were determined by the checkerboard method and analyzed by two synergism tests with 19 clones of P. aeruginosa isolates, 10 of which were MBL producers. A pharmacodynamic (PD) analysis was performed for meropenem (administered at 1 g every 8 h [q8h], 1.5 g every 6 h [q6h], and 2 g q8h) and fosfomycin (administered at 4 g q8h, 4 g q6h, 6 g q8h, and 8 g q8h) regimens with a dose reduction for renal impairment by determining the probability of target attainment (PTA) for target PD indices of meropenem (the percentage of the time in a 24-h duration at which the free drug concentration remains above the MIC [fT _>MIC], ≥40%) and fosfomycin (the ratio of the area under the free drug concentration-versus-time curve over 24 h and the MIC [fAUC/MIC], ≥40.8). The combination reduced the MIC₅₀ and MIC₉₀ by 8-fold. Seven (44%) isolates with MICs in the intermediate or resistant ranges became sensitive to meropenem. For the MBL-producing isolates, the combination resulted in 40% of isolates becoming sensitive to meropenem. The meropenem regimens reached a PTA of ≥90% (MIC = 4 μg/ml) in 6 (32%) isolates when they were used as monotherapy and 13 (68%) isolates when they were combined with fosfomycin. None of the fosfomycin monotherapy regimens reached the PTA of ≥90% (MIC = 16 μg/ml). When combined with meropenem, the fosfomycin regimens reached the PTA of ≥90% in 14 (74%) isolates. The increase in pharmacodynamic activities resulting from the synergistic action of meropenem with fosfomycin demonstrates the potential relevance of this combination to fight infections caused by MDR and MBL-producing P. aeruginosa strains.