Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27067330›Full record

ArticleAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy2016

Paradoxical Effect of Polymyxin B: High Drug Exposure Amplifies Resistance in Acinetobacter baumannii.

Brian T Tsuji, Cornelia B Landersdorfer, Justin R Lenhard, Soon-Ee Cheah, Visanu Thamlikitkul, Gauri G Rao, Patricia N Holden, Alan Forrest, Jürgen B Bulitta, Roger L Nation and 1 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 50 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  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

11 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Brian T TsujiLaboratory for Antimicrobial Pharmacodynamics, School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, The State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York, USA The New York State Center of Excellence in Bioinformatics & Life Sciences, The State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York, USA btsuji@buffalo.edu.
Cornelia B LandersdorferLaboratory for Antimicrobial Pharmacodynamics, School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, The State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York, USA Drug Delivery, Disposition and Dynamics, Monash Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Monash University, Parkville, Australia.
Justin R LenhardLaboratory for Antimicrobial Pharmacodynamics, School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, The State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York, USA The New York State Center of Excellence in Bioinformatics & Life Sciences, The State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York, USA.
Soon-Ee CheahDrug Delivery, Disposition and Dynamics, Monash Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Monash University, Parkville, Australia.
Visanu ThamlikitkulDepartment of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Gauri G RaoLaboratory for Antimicrobial Pharmacodynamics, School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, The State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York, USA The New York State Center of Excellence in Bioinformatics & Life Sciences, The State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York, USA.
Patricia N HoldenLaboratory for Antimicrobial Pharmacodynamics, School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, The State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York, USA The New York State Center of Excellence in Bioinformatics & Life Sciences, The State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York, USA.
Alan ForrestLaboratory for Antimicrobial Pharmacodynamics, School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, The State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York, USA Department of Pharmacotherapy and Experimental Therapeutics, School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Jürgen B BulittaLaboratory for Antimicrobial Pharmacodynamics, School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, The State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York, USA Center for Pharmacometrics and Systems Pharmacology, Department of Pharmaceutics, College of Pharmacy, University of Florida, Orlando, Florida, USA.
Roger L NationDrug Delivery, Disposition and Dynamics, Monash Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Monash University, Parkville, Australia.
Jian LiDrug Delivery, Disposition and Dynamics, Monash Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Monash University, Parkville, Australia.
University at Buffalo, State University of New York · USMonash University · AUMahidol University · THUniversity of Florida · USUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · US

Funding

Novel PK/PD Strategies for Polymyxin Combinations against Gram-negative SuperbugsR01AI111990 · NIAID · STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT BUFFALO · PI LI, JIAN, TSUJI, BRIAN · 2014 to 2018
$4.4M
NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI111990
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Administering polymyxin antibiotics in a traditional fashion may be ineffective against Gram-negative ESKAPE (Enterococcus faecium, Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Enterobacter species) pathogens. Here, we explored increasing the dose intensity of polymyxin B against two strains of Acinetobacter baumannii in the hollow-fiber infection model. The following dosage regimens were simulated for polymyxin B (t1/2 = 8 h): non-loading dose (1.43 mg/kg of body weight every 12 h [q12h]), loading dose (2.22 mg/kg q12h for 1 dose and then 1.43 mg/kg q12h), front-loading dose (3.33 mg/kg q12h for 1 dose followed by 1.43 mg/kg q12h), burst (5.53 mg/kg for 1 dose), and supraburst (18.4 mg/kg for 1 dose). Against both A. baumannii isolates, a rapid initial decline in the total population was observed within the first 6 h of polymyxin exposure, whereby greater polymyxin B exposure resulted in greater maximal killing of -1.25, -1.43, -2.84, -2.84, and -3.40 log10 CFU/ml within the first 6 h. Unexpectedly, we observed a paradoxical effect whereby higher polymyxin B exposures dramatically increased resistant subpopulations that grew on agar containing up to 10 mg/liter of polymyxin B over 336 h. High drug exposure also proliferated polymyxin-dependent growth. A cost-benefit pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic relationship between 24-h killing and 336-h resistance was explored. The intersecting point, where the benefit of bacterial killing was equal to the cost of resistance, was an fAUC0-24 (area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to 24 h for the free, unbound fraction of drug) of 38.5 mg · h/liter for polymyxin B. Increasing the dose intensity of polymyxin B resulted in amplification of resistance, highlighting the need to utilize polymyxins as part of a combination against high-bacterial-density A. baumannii infections.

Indexed as

Acinetobacter baumanniiAnti-Bacterial AgentsDrug Resistance, Multiple, BacterialEnterobacteriaceaeEnterococcus faeciumKlebsiella pneumoniaeMicrobial Sensitivity TestsPolymyxin BPseudomonas aeruginosaStaphylococcus aureusAnti-Bacterial AgentsPolymyxin B

Identifiers

PMID27067330
PMCPMC4914656
OpenAlexW2316564861

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.