ArticleAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy2013
Pharmacodynamic variability beyond that explained by MICs.
Article in Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Moving From Point-Based Analysis to Systems-Based Modeling: Knowledge Integration to Address Antimicrobial Resistance.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2025Article
- Population pharmacokinetics and humanized dosage regimens matching the peak, area, trough, and range of amikacin plasma concentrations in immune-competent murine bloodstream and lung infection models.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2024Article
- Individual Components of Polymyxin B Modeled via Population Pharmacokinetics to Design Humanized Dosage Regimens for a Bloodstream and Lung Infection Model in Immune-Competent Mice.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2023Article
- In vivo pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of ceftibuten/ledaborbactam, a novel oral β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor combination.The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy · 2022Article
- Pharmacodynamic Thresholds for Beta-Lactam Antibiotics: A Story of MouseFrontiers in pharmacology · 2022Review
- Elevated MICs of Susceptible Antipseudomonal Cephalosporins in Non-Carbapenemase-Producing, Carbapenem-Resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa: Implications for Dose Optimization.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2021Article
- Mechanism-Based Disease Progression Model Describing Host-Pathogen Interactions During the Pathogenesis of Acinetobacter baumannii Pneumonia.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2018Article
- Tissue penetration of antifungal agents.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Monte Carlo simulations (MCS) present a powerful tool to evaluate candidate regimens by determining the probability of target attainment. Although these assessments have traditionally incorporated variability in pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters and MICs, consideration of interstrain pharmacodynamic (PD) variability has been neglected. A population PK/PD model was developed for doripenem using murine thigh infection data based on 20 bacterial strains. PK data were fit to a linear two-compartment model with first-order input and elimination processes and an absorption lag time from a separate site (r(2) > 0.96). PK parameters were utilized to simulate free-drug profiles for various regimens in PD studies, from which the percentage of the dosing interval for which free-drug concentrations exceed the MIC of the targeted strain (%fT>MIC) was calculated. Doripenem PD was excellently described with Hill-type models (r(2) > 0.98); significant differences between mean PD estimates determined using a two-stage approach versus population analyses were not observed (P > 0.05); however, the variance in 50% effective concentration (EC50) and maximum effect (Emax) among strains was much greater using the two-stage approach. Even using the population approach, interstrain variability in EC50 (coefficient of variation expressed as a percentage [CV%] = 29.2%) and H (CV% = 46.1%) parameters was substantive, while the variability in Emax (CV% = 19.7%) was modest. This resulted in extensive variability in the range of %fT>MIC targets associated with stasis to those associated with a 2-log10 reduction in bacterial burden (CV% ∼ 50%). It appears that MCS, based on the assumption that PD variability is due to MIC alone, underestimates variability and may consequently underestimate treatment failures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.