Mutant Prevention Concentration of Gemifloxacin for Clinical Isolates of <i>Streptococcus pneumoniae</i>
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Fluoroquinolone resistance is beginning to appear among isolates of Streptococcus pneumoniae (4, 7, 8, 10). We have argued that resistance arises as a consequence of dosing that places tissue concentrations between the MIC and the mutant prevention concentration (MPC), a new measure of activity related to the MIC of the least susceptible, single-step mutant (15, 16). If this is true, MPC can be used to identify fluoroquinolones that are least likely to selectively enrich resistant subpopulations. We previously estimated MPC for several fluoroquinolones with about 100 clinical isolates of S. pneumoniae obtained from the Royal University Hospital, Saskatoon, Canada (2). We now add gemifloxacin to the list of compounds compared and increase the number of isolates tested to 146 for all of the compounds. Table Table11 lists MICs and MPCs for gemifloxacin, moxifloxacin, gatifloxacin, and levofloxacin determined as described previously (2) using the same set of isolates for each compound. Fluoroquinolone-resistant isolates were excluded. Gemifloxacin had the lowest modal MPC (0.25 μg/ml), followed by moxifloxacin (0.5 μg/ml), gatifloxacin (1 μg/ml), and levofloxacin (2 μg/ml). The same rank order was observed when MPC was determined for 90% of the isolates. These data are consistent with gemifloxacin having more activity than the other compounds against resistant mutants (9, 14). When the MIC at which 90% of the susceptible isolates are inhibited (MIC90) was determined, gemifloxacin was also more active than moxifloxacin, gatifloxacin, and levofloxacin in these comparisons by 2, 3, and 4 dilutions, respectively. TABLE 1. Fluoroquinolone activity with clinical isolates of S. pneumoniaea Since the effectiveness of an antibacterial agent is likely to be a function of both activity (MIC and MPC) and pathogen exposure (5, 11), comparision of compounds requires consideration of drug pharmacokinetics in human tissues. From published values of concentrations in serum, we calculated the time above MPC for each compound when dosed as recommended by the manufacturer. Moxifloxacin is expected to have a concentration in serum above the MPC at which 90% of the isolates tested are prevented (MPC90) for 18 h. For gemifloxacin, gatifloxacin, and levofloxacin, those times are 4, 1 to 2, and 0 h, respectively. This suggests that moxifloxacin may be the most effective at restricting the development of resistance, even though gemifloxacin has the lowest MIC and MPC. Table Table11 also lists values of the area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to 24 h/MIC and the maximum concentration of drug in serum (Cmax)/MIC for recommended doses. For both parameters gemifloxacin exhibits higher values than moxifloxacin. If these two parameters are inversely related to the selection of resistant mutants (1, 6, 13), resistance should develop less often from treatment with gemifloxacin than with moxifloxacin. But time above MPC (Table (Table1)1) and low-concentration cycling (12) predict the opposite outcome. A clinical comparison of these two compounds may help distinguish between MPC-based ideas (15) and empirical pharmacodynamics (6, 13) for predicting the development of resistance. Such a comparison is important because neither method can be easily tested: MPC is an in vitro measure that does not take into account compartments in patients where drug concentrations and bacterial growth properties are poorly defined, and pharmacodynamic methods require examining very large numbers of patients to identify the point at which the overall prevalence of resistance does not increase.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».