Mutant Prevention Concentration of Gemifloxacin for Clinical Isolates of <i>Streptococcus pneumoniae</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".