Top

Clinical Pharmacokinetics

Published in:

01-02-2001 | Original Research Article

A Retrospective Analysis of Pharmacokinetic-Pharmacodynamic Parameters as Indicators of the Clinical Efficacy of Ceftizoxime

Authors: Dr Amparo Sánchez-Navarro, Clara-Isabel Colino, M. Mar Sánchez Recio

Published in: Clinical Pharmacokinetics | Issue 2/2001

Abstract

Objective

To analyse the relationship between a series of estimated pharmaco-kinetic-pharmacodynamic parameters and the reported efficacy of ceftizoxime.

Design

Retrospective literature search and analysis using different correlation models.

Methods

The following parameters were calculated for each group of patients included in the study from the simulated plasma concentration curves corresponding to the dosage regimen administered: (i) peak concentration at steady state divided by the minimum inhibitory concentration (C_max ^SS/MIC); (ii) the time that the plasma drug concentration exceeded the MIC scaled to 24 hours at steady state [(t^ss)24h > MIC]; (iii) the total area under the concentration-time curve over 24 hours at steady state divided by the MIC [(AUC^ss)24l/MIC]; and (iv) the AUC at steady state for the period of time that the concentration is above the MIC over a period of 24 hours divided by the MIC [(AUIC^ss)24h]. A univariate correlation analysis was performed considering efficacy [rate (%) of clinical cure or bacterial eradication] as the dependent variable and the pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic parameter as the independent variable, using linear and nonlinear models.

Results

(t^ss)24h > MIC was the only parameter that was statistically correlated with efficacy, the linear model being the best choice among the 4 relationship approaches tested. A biased frequency distribution of reported efficacy data constricts the correlation analysis to a narrow range of efficacy and hinders interpretation of the results.

Conclusions

The reporting of cases with low efficacy rates as well as those with high efficacy rates, including information on patient idiosyncrasies and the infecting organisms, would be of great help in performing retrospective analyses of the use of antimicrobial agents, leading to the optimisation of therapy with this type of drug in clinical practice.

Schentag JJ, Ballow CH, Paldino JA, et al. Dual individualization with antibiotics: integrated antibiotic management strategies for use in hospitals. In: Evans WE, Schentag JJ, Jusko WJ, editors. Applied pharmacokinetics. 3rd ed. Vancouver (WA): Applied Therapeutics, Inc., 1992; 17: 1–20

Schentag JJ, Nix DE, Adelman MH. Mathematical examination of dual individualization principles: I. Relationships between AUC above MIC and area under the inhibitory curve for cefmenoxime, Ciprofloxacin and tobramycin. Ann Pharmacother 1991; 25: 1050–7

Goss TF, Forrest A, Nix DE, et al. Mathematical examination of dual individualization principles: II. The rate of bacterial eradication at the same area under the inhibitory is more rapid for Ciprofloxacin than for cefmenoxime. Ann Pharmacother 1994; 28: 863–8

Luzier A, Goss TF, Cumbo TJ, et al. Mathematical examination of dual individualization principles: III. Development of a scoring system for pneumonia staging and quantitation of response to antibiotics: results in cefmenoxime treated patients. Ann Pharmacother 1992; 26: 1358–65

Hyatt JM, Mckinnon PS, Zimmer GS, et al. The importance of pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic surrogate markers to outcome. Clin Pharmacokinet 1995; 28: 143–60PubMedCrossRef

Li RC, Zhu M, Schentag JJ. Achieving an optimal outcome in the treatment of infections: the role of clinical pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of antimicrobials. Clin Pharmacokinet 1999; 37: 1–16PubMedCrossRef

Sánchez-Navarro A, Sánchez Recio MM. Basis of anti-infective therapy: pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic criteria and methodology for dual dosage individualisation. Clin Pharmacokinet 1999; 37: 289–304PubMedCrossRef

Shah PM, Junghanns W, Stille W. Bactericidal dose-activity relationships with E. coli, K. pneumoniae and Staphylococcus aureus [in German]. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 1976; 101: 325–8PubMedCrossRef

Craig WA. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic parameters: rationale for antibacterial dosing of mice and men. Clin Infect Dis 1998; 26: 1–10PubMedCrossRef

10.

Sanchez-Recio MM, Colino CI, Sanchez-Navarro A. A retrospective analysis of pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic indices as indicators of the clinical efficacy of Ciprofloxacin. J Antimicrob Chemother 2000; 45: 321–8PubMedCrossRef

11.

Bouvier D’Ivoire MIJ, Marie PH. Dosage regimens of antibacterials. Implications of a pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic model. Clin Drug Invest 1996; 11: 229–39

12.

Dudley MN. Pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of antibiotics with special reference to the fluoroquinolones. Am J Med 1991; 91 Suppl. 6A: 45–50SCrossRef

13.

Clini V, Clini E, Tana F, et al. Ceftizoxime in lower respiratory tract infection. Drug Invest 1992; 4 Suppl. 1: 38–9CrossRef

14.

Bechard DL. The efficacy of ceftizoxime in the therapy of bacteraemia. J Antimicrob Chemother 1982; 10 Suppl. C: 175–81PubMedCrossRef

15.

Montgomerie JZ, Morrow JW, Canawati HN, et al. Ceftizoxime in the treatment of urinary tract infection in spinal cord injury patients: comparison with tobramycin. J Antimicrob Chemother 1982; 10 Suppl. C: 247–52PubMedCrossRef

16.

Shimada J, Shimizu K. Experience with ceftizoxime: an overall summary of clinical trials in Japan. J Antimicrob Chemother 1982; 10 Suppl. C: 311–26PubMed

17.

Parks D, Layne P, Uri J, et al. Ceftizoxime: clinical evaluation of efficacy and safety in the USA. J Antimicrob Chemother 1982; 10 Suppl. C: 327–38PubMedCrossRef

18.

Rimoldi R, Mandler F, Grasso S, et al. Clinical and bacteriological evaluation of ceftizoxime in lower respiratory tract infections. In: Spitzy KH, Karrer K, editors. Ceftizoxime. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Congress of Chemotherapy; 1983 Aug 28–Sep 2; Vienna, Pt 32: 36–9

19.

Fainstein V, Bolivar R, Elting L, et al. Ceftizoxime in the treatment of infections of patients with cancer. J Antimicrob Chemother 1982; 10 Suppl. C: 167–73PubMedCrossRef

20.

Richards DM, Heel RC. Ceftizoxime: a review of its antibacterial activity, pharmacokinetic properties and therapeutic use. Drugs 1985; 29: 281–329PubMedCrossRef

21.

Fu KP, Neu HC. Antibacterial activity of ceftizoxime, a β-lactamase-stable Cephalosporin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1980; 17: 583–90PubMedCrossRef

22.

Greenwood D, Pearson N, Eley A, et al. Comparative in vitro activities of cefotaxime and ceftizoxime (FK-749). New Cephalosporins with exceptional potency. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1980; 17: 397–401PubMedCrossRef

23.

Muytjens H, van der Ros-van de Repe J. Comparative activities of 13 β-lactam antibiotics. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1982; 21: 925–34PubMedCrossRef

24.

Bodey GP, Fainstein V, Hinkle AM. Comparative in vitro study of new Cephalosporins. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1981; 20: 226–30PubMedCrossRef

25.

Yabuuchi E, Ito T, Tanimura N, et al. In vitro antimicrobial activity of ceftizoxime against glucose-nonfermentative gram-negative rods. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1981; 20: 136–9PubMedCrossRef

26.

Drulak MW, Chow AW. Comparative in vitro activity of ceftizoxime, cefoperazone and cefoxitin against anaerobic bacteria. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1981; 20: 683–5PubMedCrossRef

27.

Barry AL, Jones RN, Thornsberry C, et al. Ceftizoxime: collaborative multiphased in vitro evaluation including tentative interpretive standards for disc susceptibility test β-lactamase stability and inhibition. J Antimicrob Chemother 1982; 10 Suppl. C: 25–44PubMedCrossRef

28.

Cutler RE, Blair AD, Burgess ED, et al. Pharmacokinetics of ceftizoxime. J Antimicrob Chemother 1982; 10 Suppl. C: 91–7PubMedCrossRef

29.

Quintiliani R, Nightingale CH. Comparative pharmacokinetics of ceftizoxime and other third-generation Cephalosporins in humans. J Antimicrob Chemother 1982; 10 Suppl. C: 99–104PubMedCrossRef

30.

Shyu WC, Jordan NS, Quintiliani R, et al. Comparative pharmacokinetics of ceftizoxime (CZ) and cefotaxime (CT). In: Spitzy KH, Karrer K, editors. Ceftizoxime. Proceedings of the 13th International Congress of Chemotherapy; 1983 Aug 28–Sep 2; Vienna, Pt 32: 29–31

31.

Kowalsky SF, Echols RM, Venezia AR, et al. Pharmacokinetics of ceftizoxime in subjects with various degrees of renal function. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1983; 24: 151–5PubMedCrossRef

32.

Nakashima N, Suzuki K, Hashimoto H, et al. Phase I study of ceftizoxime, a new Cephalosporin: single-dose study. J Clin Pharmacol 1981; 21: 388–95PubMed

33.

Peterson LR, Gerding DN, Van Etta LL, et al. Pharmacokinetics, protein binding and extravascular distribution of ceftizoxime in normal subjects. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1982; 22: 878–81PubMedCrossRef

34.

Vallee F, LeBel M. Comparative study of pharmacokinetics and serum bactericidal activity of ceftizoxime and cefotaxime. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1991; 35: 2057–64PubMedCrossRef

35.

Ohkawa M, Okasho A, Sugata T, et al. Elimination kinetics of ceftizoxime in humans with and without renal insufficiency. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1982; 22: 308–11PubMedCrossRef

36.

Neu HC, Srinivasan S. Pharmacology of ceftizoxime compared with that of cefamandole. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1981; 20: 366–9PubMedCrossRef

37.

Furlanut M, Montanari G, Padrini R, et al. Pharmacokinetics of ceftizoxime in healthy adult volunteers. Drug Exp Clin Res 1983; 9: 657–9

38.

Neu HC. Ceftizoxime: a β-lactamase-stable, broad-spectrum Cephalosporin: pharmacokinetics, adverse effects and clinical use. Pharmacotherapy 1984; 4: 47–58PubMed

39.

Yamaoka K, Nakagama T, Uno T. Statistical moments in pharmacokinetics. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 1978; 6: 547–58PubMed

40.

Sachs L. Measures of association: correlation and regression. In: Sachs L, editor. Applied statistics. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1982: 382–456CrossRef

41.

Ebert SC. Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modelling of irreversible drug effects. In: Derendorf H, Hochhaus G, editors. Handbook of pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic correlation. London: CRC Press, 1995: 35–6

42.

Dunne AP, Stacker GE. PCNONLIN 4.2. Science software user’s guide. Lexington (KY): Statistical Consultants, 1992

43.

Felmingham D, Grüneberg RN, Alexander Project Group. A multicentre collaborative study of the antimicrobial susceptibility of community-acquired, lower respiratory tract pathogens 1992–1993: the Alexander Project. J Antimicrob Chemother 1996; 38 Suppl. A: 1–57PubMedCrossRef

44.

Felmingham D, Grüneberg RN, Alexander Project Group. The Alexander Project 1996–1997: latest susceptibility data from this international study of bacterial pathogens from community-acquired lower respiratory infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 2000; 45: 191–203PubMedCrossRef

45.

Livermore DM, Threlfall EJ, Reacher MH, et al. Are routine sensitivity test data suitable for the surveillance of resistance? Resistance rates amongst Escherichia coli from blood and CSF from 1991–1997, as assessed by routine and centralized testing. J Antimicrob Chemother 2000; 45: 205–11PubMedCrossRef

46.

Ament PW. Predicting fluoroquinolone therapy outcomes: potential role of the AUC/MIC ratio. Formulary 1999; 34: 1033–40

47.

Forrest A, Chodosh S, Amantea MA, et al. Pharmacokinetics and phannacodynamics of oral grepafloxacin in patients with acute bacterial exacerbations of chronic bronchitis. J Antimicrob Chemother 1997; 40 Suppl. A: 45–57PubMedCrossRef

Title: A Retrospective Analysis of Pharmacokinetic-Pharmacodynamic Parameters as Indicators of the Clinical Efficacy of Ceftizoxime
Authors: Dr Amparo Sánchez-Navarro
Clara-Isabel Colino
M. Mar Sánchez Recio
Publication date: 01-02-2001
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Published in: Clinical Pharmacokinetics / Issue 2/2001
Print ISSN: 0312-5963
Electronic ISSN: 1179-1926
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00003088-200140020-00004

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

A Retrospective Analysis of Pharmacokinetic-Pharmacodynamic Parameters as Indicators of the Clinical Efficacy of Ceftizoxime

Abstract

Objective

Design

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objective

Design

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 2/2001

Food Does Not Influence the Pharmacokinetics of a New Extended Release Formulation of Tolterodine for Once Daily Treatment of Patients with Overactive Bladder

Clinical Pharmacokinetics of Capecitabine

Pharmacokinetic Study of Esomeprazole in the Elderly

The Development of the Bradykinin Agonist Labradimil as a Means to Increase the Permeability of the Blood-Brain Barrier

Bioadhesion