MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086096460 · doi:10.1128/aac.47.1.440-441.2003

Mutant Prevention Concentration of Gemifloxacin for Clinical Isolates of <i>Streptococcus pneumoniae</i>

2002· letter· en· W2086096460 on OpenAlexaffabout
Glen Hansen, K. Metzler, Karl Drlica, Joseph M. Blondeau

Bibliographic record

VenueAntimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy · 2002
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntibiotics Pharmacokinetics and Efficacy
Canadian institutionsRoyal University HospitalUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesNational Institutes of HealthBayer
KeywordsGemifloxacinMoxifloxacinGatifloxacinLevofloxacinStreptococcus pneumoniaeMicrobiologyCiprofloxacinMinimum inhibitory concentrationMedicineBiologyAntimicrobialAntibiotics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.300 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations50
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAntimicrobial Agents and ChemotherapySame topicAntibiotics Pharmacokinetics and EfficacyFrench-language works237,207