Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12709329›Full record

ArticleAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy2003

In vitro pharmacodynamic evaluation of the mutant selection window hypothesis using four fluoroquinolones against Staphylococcus aureus.

Alexander A Firsov, Sergey N Vostrov, Irene Y Lubenko, Karl Drlica, Yury A Portnoy, Stephen H Zinner

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 77 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
77citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
14.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

77 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 215 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

17 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Alexander A FirsovDepartment of Pharmacokinetics, Gause Institute of New Antibiotics, Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, Moscow, Russia. firsov@dol.ru
Sergey N Vostrov
Irene Y Lubenko
Karl Drlica
Yury A Portnoy
Stephen H Zinner
Gause Institute of New Antibiotics Russian Academy of Medical Sciences · RUHarvard University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To study the hypothesis of the mutant selection window (MSW) in a pharmacodynamic context, the susceptibility of a clinical isolate of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus exposed to moxifloxacin (MOX), gatifloxacin (GAT), levofloxacin (LEV), and ciprofloxacin (CIP) was tested daily by using an in vitro dynamic model that simulates human pharmacokinetics. A series of monoexponential pharmacokinetic profiles that mimic once-daily administration of MOX (half-life, 12 h), GAT (half-life, 7 h), and LEV (half-life, 6.8 h) and twice-daily administration of CIP (half-life, 4 h) provided peak concentrations (C(max)) that either equaled the MIC, fell between the MIC and the mutant prevention concentration (MPC) (i.e., within or "inside" the MSW), or exceeded the MPC. The respective ratios of the area under the curve (AUC) over a 24-h dosing interval (AUC(24)) to the MIC varied from 13 to 244 h, and the starting inoculum was 10(8) CFU/ml (6 x 10(9) CFU per 60-ml central compartment). With all four quinolones, the greatest increases in MIC were observed at those AUC(24)/MIC values (from 24 to 62 h) that corresponded to quinolone concentrations within the MSW over most of the dosing interval (>20%). Less-pronounced increases in MIC were associated with the smallest simulated AUC(24)/MIC values (15 to 16 h) of GAT and CIP, whose C(max) exceeded the MICs. No such increases were observed with the smallest AUC(24)/MIC values (13 to 17 h) of MOX and LEV, whose C(max) were close to the MICs. Also, less pronounced but significant increases in MIC occurred at AUC(24)/MIC values (107 to 123 h) that correspond to quinolone concentrations partly overlapping the MIC-to-MPC range. With all four drugs, no change in MIC was seen at the highest AUC(24)/MIC values (201 to 244 h), where quinolone concentrations exceeded the MPC over most of the dosing interval. These "protective" AUC(24)/MIC ratios correspond to 66% of the usual clinical dose of MOX (400 mg), 190% of a 400-mg dose of GAT, 220% of a 500-mg dose of LEV, and 420% of two 500-mg doses of CIP. Thus, MOX may protect against resistance development at subtherapeutic doses, whereas GAT, LEV, and CIP provide similar effects only at doses that exceed their usual clinical doses. These data support the concept that resistant mutants are selectively enriched when antibiotic concentrations fall inside the MSW and suggest that in vitro dynamic models can be used to predict the relative abilities of quinolones to prevent mutant selection.

Indexed as

Anti-Infective AgentsArea Under CurveFluoroquinolonesMicrobial Sensitivity TestsMutationResearch DesignStaphylococcus aureusAnti-Infective AgentsFluoroquinolones

Identifiers

PMID12709329
PMCPMC153314
OpenAlexW2171632034

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.