Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12936969›Full record

ArticleAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy2003

Pharmacodynamics of levofloxacin and ciprofloxacin in a murine pneumonia model: peak concentration/MIC versus area under the curve/MIC ratios.

F Scaglione, J W Mouton, R Mattina, F Fraschini

Abstract 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 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

26 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Efficacy of cefiderocol and levofloxacin againstAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2020
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Protein binding: do we ever learn?Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2011
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

4 authors.

F ScaglioneUniversity of Milan School of Medicine, Milan, Italy. francesco.scaglione@unimi.it
J W Mouton
R Mattina
F Fraschini

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

During the last decade some studies have shown that the area under the curve (AUC)/MIC ratio is the pharmacodynamic index that best predicts the efficacies of quinolones, while other studies suggest that the predictive value of the peak concentration/MIC (peak/MIC) ratio is superior to the AUC/MIC ratio in explaining clinical and microbiological outcomes. In classical fractionated dose-response studies with animals, it is difficult to differentiate between the AUC/MIC ratio and the peak/MIC ratio because of colinearity. Three different levofloxacin and ciprofloxacin dosing regimens were studied in a neutropenic mouse pneumonia model. The different regimens were used with the aim of increasing the AUC/MIC ratio without changing the peak/MIC ratio and vice versa. The first regimen (RC) consisted of daily doses of 5 up to 160 mg/kg of body weight divided into one, two, or four doses. In the second regimen (R0), mice were given 1.25 mg/kg every hour from 1 to 23 h, while the dose given at 0 h was 2.5, 5, 10, 20, 40, or 80 mg/kg. In the third regimen (R11), mice also received 1.25 mg/kg every hour from 0 to 23 h; but in addition, they also received 2.5, 5, 10, 20, 40, or 80 mg/kg at 11 h. The level of protein binding was also evaluated. The results indicate that the unbound fraction (f(u)) was concentration dependent for both levofloxacin and ciprofloxacin and ranged from approximately 0.67 to 0.88 for both drugs between concentrations of 0.5 and 80 mg/liter. The relationships between the AUC/MIC ratio and the number of CFU were slightly better than those between the peak/MIC ratio and the number of CFU. There was no clear relationship between the amount of time that the concentration remained above the MIC and effect (R(2) < 0.1). For both drugs, the peak/MIC ratio that resulted in a 50% effective concentration was lower for the R0 and R11 dosing regimens, indicating the importance of the AUC/MIC ratio. The same was true for the static doses. Survival studies showed that for mice treated with the low doses the rate of survival was comparable to that for the controls, but with the higher doses the rate of survival was better for mice receiving the R0 regimen. We conclude that for quinolones the AUC/MIC ratio best correlates with efficacy against pneumococci and that the effect of the peak/MIC ratio found in some studies could be partly explained by concentration-dependent protein binding.

Indexed as

LevofloxacinAnimalsAnti-Infective AgentsArea Under CurveCiprofloxacinColony Count, MicrobialDose-Response Relationship, DrugFemaleMiceMice, Inbred C57BLMicrobial Sensitivity TestsOfloxacinPneumonia, PneumococcalProtein BindingStreptococcus pneumoniaeSurvival AnalysisAnti-Infective AgentsCiprofloxacinLevofloxacinOfloxacin

Identifiers

PMID12936969
PMCPMC182632

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.