Once-daily aminoglycosides in the treatment of gram-positive endocarditis

Pharmacokinetic modeling of gentamicin in treatment of infective endocarditis: Model development and validation of existing models

Gentamicin shows large variations in half-life and volume of distribution (Vd) within and between individuals. Thus, monitoring and accurately predicting serum levels are required to optimize effectiveness and minimize toxicity. Currently, two population pharmacokinetic models are applied for predicting gentamicin doses in adults. For endocarditis patients the optimal model is unknown. We aimed at: 1) creating an optimal model for endocarditis patients; and 2) assessing whether the endocarditis and existing models can accurately predict serum levels. We performed a retrospective observational two-cohort study: one cohort to parameterize the endocarditis model by iterative two-stage Bayesian analysis, and a second cohort to validate and compare all three models. The Akaike Information Criterion and the weighted sum of squares of the residuals divided by the degrees of freedom were used to select the endocarditis model. Median Prediction Error (MDPE) and Median Absolute Prediction Error (MDAPE) were used to test all models with the validation dataset. We built the endocarditis model based on data from the modeling cohort (65 patients) with a fixed 0.277 L/h/70kg metabolic clearance, 0.698 (±0.358) renal clearance as fraction of creatinine clearance, and Vd 0.312 (±0.076) L/kg corrected lean body mass. External validation with data from 14 validation cohort patients showed a similar predictive power of the endocarditis model (MDPE -1.77%, MDAPE 4.68%) as compared to the intensive-care (MDPE -1.33%, MDAPE 4.37%) and standard (MDPE -0.90%, MDAPE 4.82%) models. All models acceptably predicted pharmacokinetic parameters for gentamicin in endocarditis patients. However, these patients appear to have an increased Vd, similar to intensive care patients. Vd mainly determines the height of peak serum levels, which in turn correlate with bactericidal activity. In order to maintain simplicity, we advise to use the existing intensive-care model in clinical practice to avoid potential underdosing of gentamicin in endocarditis patients.

A comparison of different antibiotic regimens for the treatment of infective endocarditis

BACKGROUND

Infective endocarditis is a microbial infection of the endocardial surface of the heart. Antibiotics are the cornerstone of treatment, but their use is not standardised, due to the differences in presentation, populations affected and the wide variety of micro-organisms that can be responsible.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the existing evidence about the clinical benefits and harms of different antibiotics regimens used to treat people with infective endocarditis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE Classic and EMBASE, LILACS, CINAHL and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index on 30 April 2015. We also searched three trials registers and handsearched the reference lists of included papers. We applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials assessing the effects of antibiotic regimens for treating possible infective endocarditis diagnosed according to modified Duke's criteria. We considered all-cause mortality, cure rates and adverse events as the primary outcomes. We excluded people with possible infective endocarditis and pregnant women.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently performed study selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment and data extraction in duplicate. We constructed 'Summary of findings' tables and used GRADE methodology to assess the quality of studies. We described the included studies narratively.

MAIN RESULTS

Four small randomised controlled trials involving 728 allocated/224 analysed participants met our inclusion criteria. These trials had a high risk of bias. Drug companies sponsored two of the trials. We were unable to pool the data due to the heterogeneity in outcome definitions and the different antibiotics used.The included trials compared the following antibiotic schedules. The first trial compared quinolone (levofloxacin) plus standard treatment (anti-staphylococcal penicillin (cloxacillin or dicloxacillin), aminoglycoside (tobramycin or netilmicin) and rifampicin) versus standard treatment alone reporting uncertain effects on all-cause mortality (8/31 (26%) with levofloxacin plus standard treatment versus 9/39 (23%) with standard treatment alone; RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.56, very low quality evidence). The second trial compared daptomycin versus low-dose gentamicin plus an anti-staphylococcal penicillin (nafcillin, oxacillin or flucloxacillin) or vancomycin. This showed uncertain effects in terms of cure rates (9/28 (32.1%) with daptomycin versus 9/25 (36%) with low-dose gentamicin plus anti-staphylococcal penicillin or vancomycin, RR 0.89 95% CI 0.42 to 1.89; very low quality evidence). The third trial compared cloxacillin plus gentamicin with a glycopeptide (vancomycin or teicoplanin) plus gentamicin. In participants receiving gentamycin plus glycopeptide only 13/23 (56%) were cured versus 11/11 (100%) receiving cloxacillin plus gentamicin (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.85; very low quality evidence). The fourth trial compared ceftriaxone plus gentamicin versus ceftriaxone alone and found no conclusive differences in terms of cure (15/34 (44%) with ceftriaxone plus gentamicin versus 21/33 (64%) with ceftriaxone alone, RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.10; very low quality evidence).The trials reported adverse events, need for cardiac surgical interventions, uncontrolled infection and relapse of endocarditis and found no conclusive differences between comparison groups (very low quality evidence). No trials assessed septic emboli or quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Limited and very low quality evidence suggested that there were no conclusive differences between antibiotic regimens in terms of cure rates or other relevant clinical outcomes. However, because of the very low quality evidence, this needs confirmation. The conclusion of this Cochrane review was based on randomised controlled trials with high risk of bias. Accordingly, current evidence does not support or reject any regimen of antibiotic therapy for treatment of infective endocarditis.

Comparative pharmacodynamics of gentamicin against Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa

Aminoglycosides are often used to treat severe infections with gram-positive organisms. Previous studies have shown concentration-dependent killing by aminoglycosides of gram-negative bacteria, but limited data are available for gram-positive bacteria. We compared the in vitro pharmacodynamics of gentamicin against Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Five S. aureus strains were examined (ATCC 29213 and four clinical isolates). Time-kill studies (TKS) in duplicate (baseline inocula of 10(7) CFU/ml) were conducted to evaluate bacterial killing in relation to increasing gentamicin concentrations (0 to 16 times the MIC). Serial samples were obtained over 24 h to quantify bacterial burden. Similar TKS with P. aeruginosa ATCC 27853 were conducted, and the time courses of the all bacterial strains were mathematically modeled for quantitative comparison. A dose fractionation study (using identical daily doses of gentamicin) in an in vitro hollow-fiber infection model (HFIM) over 5 days was subsequently used for data validation for the two ATCC strains. Model fits to the data were satisfactory; r(2) values for the S. aureus and P. aeruginosa ATCC strains were 0.915 and 0.956, respectively. Gentamicin was found to have a partially concentration-dependent killing effect against S. aureus; concentrations beyond four to 8 times the MIC did not result in significantly faster bacterial killing. In contrast, a concentration-dependent profile was demonstrated in suppressing P. aeruginosa regrowth after initial decline in bacterial burden. In HFIM, thrice-daily gentamicin dosing appeared to be superior to once-daily dosing for S. aureus, but they were similar for P. aeruginosa. Different killing profiles of gentamicin were demonstrated against S. aureus and P. aeruginosa. These results may guide optimal dosing strategies of gentamicin in S. aureus infections and warrant further investigations.

Pharmacodynamics and dosing of aminoglycosides

Aminoglycosides are concentration-dependent killing agents whose pharmacodynamic predictors of efficacy are the area-under-the-curve to minimum inhibitory concentration ratio and the peak to minimum inhibitory concentration ratio. Prospective studies have shown that these agents can be given once-daily or less frequently in most clinical settings, with equal efficacy and possible reduced toxicity. Dosages for different clinical settings have been studied and methods are available to monitor once-daily dosing.

Special issues in the management of infective endocarditis caused by gram-positive cocci

Gram-positive cocci, mainly streptococci and staphylococci, continue to cause the majority of cases of infective endocarditis. Among the streptococci causing IE, the long-standing predominance of oral or viridans-group streptococci has progressively faded, while the number of cases caused by "enteric streptococci" (Streptococcus bovis and enterococci) has increased. While most oral streptococci and S. bovis strains remain fully sensitive to penicillin, nutritionally variant streptococci--now renamed Abiotrophia--and enterococci can exhibit resistance to penicillin and/or glycopeptides that makes endocarditis more difficult to treat. Among the staphylococci causing endocarditis, the increasing proportion of coagulase-negative and methicillin-resistant strains observed in recent years has changed the approach to choice of antibiotic therapy. The purpose of this paper is to focus on some new aspects of the management of antibiotic therapy of IE due to streptococci and staphylococci, including recent developments such as once-daily aminoglycoside administration in IE, outpatient antibiotic therapy, and the evaluation of new antibiotics.

Aminoglycoside nephrotoxicity: do time and frequency of administration matter?

Aminoglycosides remains the mainstay in the treatment of gram-negative infections despite their potential oto-and nephrotoxicity although alternatives with equal or better efficacy are available. Several approaches were investigated to decrease aminoglycosides nephrotoxicity. Among them, only the once-daily dosing of aminoglycosides has been brought to the clinic and physicians are now increasingly adopting this approach to reduce the toxicity of these agents. The incidence of aminoglycoside nephrotoxicity can be further reduced in view of the recent data on the circadian variations of their nephrotoxicity. In fact, it has been clearly demonstrated in both experimental animals and humans that the toxicity is maximal when the drug is injected during the rest period compared with the activity period. Thus, injecting aminoglycosides once-daily at the time of the lowest toxicity is actually the most interesting and clinically applicable approach to reduce aminoglycosides toxicity.

In vitro pharmacodynamic analysis of single daily dosing versus conventional dosing of gentamicin administered with penicillin against Enterococcus faecalis

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of single daily dosing (SDD) versus conventional dosing of gentamicin when administered with penicillin to treat enterococcal infections.

DESIGN

In vitro pharmacodynamic model.

SETTING

Hospital laboratory.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A 24-hour in vitro pharmacodynamic model was employed to simulate SDD and 3 times/day dosing of gentamicin, in conjunction with continuously infused penicillin, against Enterococcus faecalis. Duplicate 24-hour kill curves were generated with varying concentrations of penicillin and gentamicin alone and in combination. No difference in the rate of kill was seen between any combination of penicillin and gentamicin. Regrowth occurred only with drug combinations in which penicillin was administered continuously at the minimum inhibitory concentration. Variations in the gentamicin dosing regimen did not affect regrowth.

CONCLUSION

In the treatment of enterococcal infections, an SDD regimen for gentamicin shows no efficacy benefit compared with conventional dosing.

Once-daily aminoglycoside in the treatment of Enterococcus faecalis endocarditis: case report and review

Once-daily administration of aminoglycosides (ODA) is effective and safe for many indications. By optimizing pharmacodynamic principles, it enhances bactericidal activity and minimizes toxicity. Its use for the treatment of enterococcal infection is controversial, however, and results of in vitro studies and animal models of endocarditis are conflicting. To date, no case reports or clinical trials have examined its utility in human enterococcal endocarditis. A patient with right-sided endocarditis caused by Enterococcus faecalis was managed by once-daily gentamicin. Clinical and bacteriologic cures of this patient raise questions as to whether enterococcal endocarditis should be regarded as contraindication to ODA. The clinical utility of ODA in this disease deserves further investigation.