Next Article in Journal
Impact of Generic Entry on Hospital Antimicrobial Use: A Retrospective Quasi-Experimental Interrupted Time Series Analysis
Next Article in Special Issue
Bacterial Mixology: Combining Pharmacodynamic Models to Predict In Vitro Competition of MCR-1-Harboring E. coli
Previous Article in Journal
Effectiveness of Pharmacist-Led Brief Educational Intervention for Adherence to the Antibiotics for Lower Respiratory Tract Infections (EATSA) in Post-Conflict Rural Areas of Pakistan: Study Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Antibiotics
Volume 10
Issue 10
10.3390/antibiotics10101148
antibiotics-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

MPC-Based Prediction of Anti-Mutant Effectiveness of Antibiotic Combinations: In Vitro Model Study with Daptomycin and Gentamicin against Staphylococcus aureus

by
Maria V. Golikova
1,*,
Elena N. Strukova
1,
Yury A. Portnoy
1,
Stephen H. Zinner
2 and
Alexander A. Firsov
1,†
1
Department of Pharmacokinetics & Pharmacodynamics, Gause Institute of New Antibiotics, 11 Bolshaya Pirogovskaya Street, 119021 Moscow, Russia
2
Department of Medicine, Mount Auburn Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 330 Mount Auburn St., Cambridge, MA 02138, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
This author has passed away.
Antibiotics 2021, 10(10), 1148; https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics10101148
Submission received: 16 August 2021 / Revised: 17 September 2021 / Accepted: 19 September 2021 / Published: 23 September 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Models of Antibiotics)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
To explore whether combined treatments with daptomycin and gentamicin can prevent the development of Staphylococcus aureus resistance, and whether the possible restriction is associated with changes in antibiotic mutant prevention concentrations (MPCs), the enrichment of daptomycin- and gentamicin-resistant mutants was studied by simulating 5-day single and combined treatments in an in vitro dynamic model. The MPCs of the antibiotics in the combination were determined at concentration ratios equal to the ratios of 24 h areas, under the concentration–time curve (AUCs) of the antibiotics, as simulated in pharmacodynamic experiments. The MPCs of both daptomycin and gentamicin decreased in the presence of each other; this led to an increase in the time when antibiotic concentrations were above the MPC (T>MPC). The increases in T>MPCs were concurrent with increases of the anti-mutant effects of the combined antibiotics. When anti-mutant effects of the antibiotics in single and combined treatments were plotted against the T>MPCs, significant sigmoid relationships were obtained. These findings suggest that (1) daptomycin–gentamicin combinations prevent the development of S. aureus resistance to each antibiotic; (2) the anti-mutant effects of antibiotic combinations can be predicted using MPCs determined at pharmacokinetic-based antibiotic concentration ratios; (3) T>MPC is a reliable predictor of the anti-mutant efficacy of antibiotic combinations.

1. Introduction

Emerging trends in antimicrobial resistance (AMR) presuppose the need to search for effective tools to improve treatment outcomes. One such tool is the use of combined therapy, with two or more antimicrobial agents, to mitigate the effects of AMR. Daptomycin is widely used to treat gram-positive infections including endocarditis and bacteremia, especially those caused by Staphylococcus aureus [1,2,3,4]. However, an increasing number of clinical case reports that document daptomycin resistance [5,6,7,8] highlight the necessity to explore combinations of daptomycin with other anti-staphylococcal antimicrobial agents, such as gentamicin. Currently, in vivo and in vitro data are limited with respect to the anti-mutant efficacy of this combination. The few extant in vivo studies have not shown that daptomycin–gentamicin combination is superior to daptomycin alone as applied to the suppression of resistance [9,10]; however, in one of the studied S. aureus strains, the development of daptomycin resistance was restricted in the presence of gentamicin [10].
Anti-mutant activity of the daptomycin–gentamicin combination was investigated in several in vitro studies, conducted in both static [11,12] and dynamic conditions [13,14,15]. The results of these studies yielded controversial conclusions, indicating that the anti-mutant efficacy of this combination might or might not be improved relative to daptomycin alone. In time-kill experiments, the daptomycin–gentamicin combination restricted the development of daptomycin resistance in S. aureus strains [11]. However, gentamicin could not prevent the appearance of daptomycin-resistant S. aureus cells when staphylococci were exposed to stepwise-increasing concentrations of daptomycin, alone or in combination with gentamicin [12]. In a pharmacodynamic study [13], the combination of daptomycin and gentamicin, at doses that correspond to therapeutic values, prevented the decrease in S. aureus susceptibility to both drugs noted in respective mono-treatments. However, in other studies [14,15], only the prevention of gentamicin resistance in the presence of daptomycin was detected, while resistance to daptomycin did not occur in mono- or combined treatments. These sparse data do not allow conclusions about daptomycin–gentamicin interactions in relation to anti-mutant effects. This supports the need for further investigation of the anti-mutant potential of daptomycin–gentamicin combinations.
A previous in vitro pharmacodynamic study of the combination of daptomycin with linezolid [16] revealed enhanced anti-mutant effects against S. aureus. The observed enhancement was attributed to lengthening the time within the dosing interval, when antibiotic concentrations exceeded the mutant prevention concentration (MPC) (T>MPC), as a result of lowering the MPCs of each antibacterial in the presence of the other. The MPCs of linezolid and daptomycin used in this combination were determined at concentration ratios equal to the ratio of the 24 h area under the concentration–time curve (AUC) of linezolid to the AUC of daptomycin simulated in the pharmacokinetic experiments. This allowed determination of the antibiotic MPCs used in the combination studies at pharmacokinetic-based concentration ratios.
To explore whether combined treatments with daptomycin and gentamicin can prevent the enrichment of S. aureus mutants resistant to both drugs, and if such restriction is associated with changes in antibiotic MPCs, the enrichment of daptomycin- and gentamicin-resistant mutants was studied by simulating 5-day single and combined treatments in an in vitro dynamic model. The exposures of daptomycin were simulated to provide subtherapeutic doses of the lipopeptide and to allow higher probability of daptomycin-resistant S. aureus mutant growth. In contrast, gentamicin-pharmacokinetics were simulated at therapeutic exposures, according to previous in vitro studies that reported high intensity of growth of gentamicin-resistant mutants, even at high-dose aminoglycoside regimens [13,15,17]. As referenced above [16], the MPCs of one antibiotic, in the presence of the other, were determined at a pharmacokinetic-based daptomycin-to-gentamicin concentration ratio, which was equal to the ratio of the AUC of daptomycin to the AUC of gentamicin in pharmacokinetic simulations of the combined treatments.

2. Results

2.1. MPCs of Daptomycin and Gentamicin Alone and in Combination

MPCs were assessed for daptomycin and gentamicin alone and in combination (Table 1). Increasing antibiotic concentrations in the agar plates led to lower numbers of surviving cells. For each antibiotic, this lowering was more pronounced in the presence of the second agent. As an example, plots reflecting concentration-dependent changes in numbers of antibiotic-resistant mutants on agar plates with daptomycin or gentamicin, alone or in combination, at a daptomycin-to-gentamicin concentration ratio of 1:1.5, are shown in Figure 1. As seen in the figure, plots for daptomycin in the presence of gentamicin and vice versa are shifted to the left along the abscissa compared with those observed for each antibiotic alone. As a result, the estimated MPCs of daptomycin or gentamicin in combination were lower than the MPCs observed with the respective single agents. Under the influence of daptomycin, the MPCs of gentamicin decreased from 10 to 3–6 mg/L depending on the daptomycin-to-gentamicin concentration ratio (1.7–3.3-fold); under the influence of gentamicin, the MPCs of daptomycin decreased from 16 to 1.2-6mg/L depending on the daptomycin-to-gentamicin concentration ratio (2.7–13.3-fold).

2.2. Antibiotic Pharmacodynamics with Resistant S. aureus Mutants

Time courses of S. aureus mutants resistant to 2 × MIC of daptomycin and gentamicin are shown in Figure 2. As seen in the figure, at low exposure of daptomycin (regimen D30), S. aureus mutants resistant to 2 × MIC of antibiotic emerged after 24 h from the beginning of the experiment. At high daptomycin exposure (D100) the amplification of antibiotic-resistant cells was less pronounced, and occurred 72 h after beginning the experiment (Figure 2a,b). The growth of daptomycin-resistant cells was suppressed at regimens D30+G65 and D100+G65, and was completely restricted at regimens D30+G160 and D100+G160.
Gentamicin monotherapy at both AUCs, even at the super-therapeutic simulated dose, did not prevent the growth of mutants resistant to 2 × MIC of the antibiotic (Figure 2c,d). At gentamicin AUC of 65 mg × h/L the emergence of resistant S. aureus cells was pronounced and starting from 96 h reached 108 CFU/mL, while in the presence of daptomycin the growth of gentamicin-resistant mutants was suppressed. The higher was the lipopeptide AUC in the combination, the lower were the numbers of gentamicin-resistant cells. However, even at regimen D100+G65, complete suppression of gentamicin-resistant cells was not observed. At gentamicin AUC of 160 proliferation of gentamicin-resistant mutants during monotherapy occurred starting from 72 h and reached 106 CFU/mL at the end of the treatment. Similarly, an enhanced anti-mutant effect of the combination was observed at the higher gentamicin AUC (regimens D30+G160 and D100+G160). At regimen D30+G160, the growth of gentamicin-resistant mutants was completely restricted. Similar trends, showing enhanced anti-mutant efficacy of daptomycin–gentamicin combinations, were observed when bacterial growth was analyzed on agar plates with 4 × MIC of daptomycin and gentamicin (Figure S1, available as Supplementary data). The growth of resistant staphylococci on agar plates with 8 × MIC of daptomycin was not detected in either mono- or combined treatments, while gentamicin-resistant staphylococci were enriched in monotherapy with aminoglycoside and suppressed in the presence of daptomycin (data not shown).
Enhancement of anti-mutant effects of daptomycin (expressed as the area under the bacterial mutant concentration–time curve, AUBCM(D)) in the presence of gentamicin was consistent with increases in T>MPC levels (Figure 3a,c). For example, AUBCM(D)s declined from 122 (regimen D30) to 28 (log CFU/mL) × h (regimen D30+G65), along with the lengthening of T>MPC from 0% to 12%, respectively. Changes in the anti-mutant effect of gentamicin (expressed as AUBCM(G)) under the influence of daptomycin are shown in Figure 3b,d. Again, the enhancement of gentamicin’s anti-mutant effect in the presence of daptomycin was accompanied by increased levels of T>MPCs. For example, when AUBCM(G) decreased from 530 (regimen G65) to 425 (log CFU/mL) × h (regimen D30+G65), T>MPCs increased from 7% to 24%.

3. Discussion

In the current study, the anti-mutant potential of daptomycin–gentamicin combinations against S. aureus was examined. Daptomycin concentrations were simulated to achieve subtherapeutic AUCs, and to provide higher probability of the emergence of S. aureus resistance to daptomycin, while gentamicin was dosed to simulate therapeutic AUCs that correspond to once daily high-level doses of 5 and 7 mg/kg. Previous studies have documented that enrichment of gentamicin-resistant cells occurs even at high peak aminoglycoside concentrations [13,15,17]. As a result, when mono-treatments with daptomycin and gentamicin were simulated in the dynamic model, enrichment of resistant S. aureus mutants was observed. In contrast to monotherapy, all combined treatments revealed enhanced anti-mutant effectiveness against both daptomycin- and gentamicin-resistant S. aureus. This could be predicted from the increased values of T>MPC associated with these regimens, which in turn were caused by lowered MPCs of both daptomycin and gentamicin in the presence of each other. The daptomycin-to-gentamicin concentration ratios, at which MPCs of antibiotics were determined, were equal to the respective daptomycin-to-gentamicin AUC ratios used in the pharmacokinetic simulations. This pharmacokinetic-based approach to MPC determination has been used in previous studies with the following antibiotic combinations: linezolid–rifampicin [18], daptomycin–rifampicin [19], linezolid–gentamicin [17] and linezolid–daptomycin [16]. In the current study the increased T>MPCs for each antibacterial in the presence of the second agent were consistent with enhanced anti-mutant effects of daptomycin and gentamicin in combination and consequently with decreased areas under the bacterial mutant concentration–time curve (AUBCMs) of daptomycin (AUBCM(D)) and gentamicin (AUBCM(G)), respectively. The present study demonstrates the protective effects of lengthening the times above MPC for daptomycin and gentamicin against the emergence of resistant S. aureus mutants. Similar conclusions, regarding the key role of increased T>MPCs of antibiotic combinations in enhancing their anti-mutant effects, were reported in our studies of combinations of daptomycin with linezolid [16] and linezolid with gentamicin [17] or rifampicin [18].
To explore the relationships between daptomycin- and gentamicin-resistant S. aureus observed in mono- and combined treatments and their respective T>MPCs, AUBCMs were plotted against T>MPCs achieved in both single and combined treatments (merged data for each antibiotic) (Figure 4). Reasonable sigmoid T>MPC relationships with AUBCM(D) or AUBCM(G) (r2 0.80 or 0.67, respectively) were found. This indirectly suggests that MPCs determined at pharmacokinetic-based concentration ratios are predictive of the anti-mutant effectiveness of antibiotic combinations. The sigmoid shape of the relationships between resistance and T>MPC has been reported previously with fluoroquinolone [20,21,22,23] and linezolid [24,25] monotherapy.
The anti-mutant efficacy of daptomycin–gentamicin combinations has been described previously in a study using an in vitro pharmacodynamic model with simulated endocardial vegetations [13]. Gentamicin addition at 5 mg/kg daily (the same as in current study) to daptomycin (6 mg/kg/day) prevented the emergence of resistance to both drugs relative to respective daptomycin and gentamicin monotherapy. In addition, in time-kill experiments, presented in another in vitro study, the daptomycin–gentamicin combination restricted the development of daptomycin resistance in S. aureus strains [11]. Our findings support these observations that daptomycin–gentamicin combinations can be effective in preventing staphylococcal resistance. Unfortunately, in a few other pharmacodynamic studies (therapeutic doses of daptomycin were simulated at 8 and/or 6 mg/kg/day) daptomycin resistance was not observed as the lipopeptide concentrations used (peak concentrations ranged from 80 to 133 mg/L) exhibited high bactericidal activity that did not allow exploration of possible improvement of the anti-mutant effect of daptomycin by gentamicin; at the same time, gentamicin resistance emerged in mono-treatments and was completely restricted in the presence of daptomycin [14,15].
It is worth noting that in the current study only one daptomycin-susceptible S. aureus strain was used. This limits the potential clinical relevance of our findings and suggests the need for further investigation of the anti-mutant potential of daptomycin–gentamicin combinations with a larger number of S. aureus strains. In addition, the clinical relevance of the current study is limited as we used subtherapeutic daptomycin doses. To improve the clinical significance of our research future simulation of therapeutic doses of daptomycin against S. aureus strains with decreased lipopeptide susceptibility should be considered. Another limitation is that the current study was carried out in in vitro conditions; this did not allow considerations of any effects of the immune system and/or protein binding, which might influence the anti-mutant efficacy of the antibiotics.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Antimicrobial Agents, Bacterial Strain and Susceptibility Testing

Daptomycin powder was purchased from Acros Organics (Fair Lawn, NJ, USA); gentamicin sulfate was purchased from PhytoTechnology Laboratories (Lenexa, KS, USA). Clinical isolate S. aureus 293 was used in the study; it was susceptible to both daptomycin and gentamicin with MICs of 0.5 and 0.25 mg/L, respectively.

4.2. MPC Determinations

Antibiotic MPCs, alone and in the presence of each other, were determined as described elsewhere [18]. Each experiment was conducted in triplicate. Daptomycin MPC in the presence of gentamicin and gentamicin MPC in the presence of daptomycin were determined at daptomycin-to-gentamicin concentration ratios equal to the respective antibiotic AUC ratios used in subsequent pharmacokinetic simulations. As a result, the daptomycin-to-gentamicin concentration ratios in MPC determinations were 1.5:1, 1:1.5, 1:2 and 1:5.

4.3. Antibiotic Dosing Regimens and Simulated Pharmacokinetic Profiles

Both single and combined treatments mimicked subtherapeutic dosing regimens of daptomycin, with respective AUCs of 30 mg × h/L (regimen D30, this designation was also used in combination treatments) and 100 mg × h/L (regimen D100), and therapeutic dosing regimens of gentamicin, 5 and 7 mg/kg once daily, with respective AUCs of 65 mg × h/L (regimen G65) and 160 mg × h/L (regimen G160) calculated using peak serum gentamicin concentrations reported in human studies (16.6 and 39.8 mg/L, respectively) [26,27]. Combined treatments with daptomycin and gentamicin were D100+G65 (1.5:1 ratio), D100+G160 (1:1.5 ratio), D30+G65 (1:2 ratio) and D30+G160 (1:5 ratio).
All pharmacodynamic experiments with once-daily dosing of daptomycin or gentamicin used alone or in combination were conducted for five consecutive days. The simulated antibiotic half-lives were as follows: 9 h for daptomycin [28] and 3 h [26] for gentamicin.

4.4. In Vitro Dynamic Model

To simulate mono-treatments with daptomycin and gentamicin a previously described dynamic model [29] was used. Briefly, the model consists of two connected flasks with fresh Mueller–Hinton broth supplemented with 50 mg of Ca2+/L (CSMHB), because daptomycin antimicrobial activity is influenced by the presence of Ca2+ [30]. One flask (central unit, volume 100 mL) also contained a magnetic stirrer and either a bacterial culture alone (growth control experiment) or a bacterial culture plus antibiotic (killing/regrowth experiments). Peristaltic pumps circulated fresh nutrient medium to and from the central unit, at a desired flow rate of 7.7 mL/h (for daptomycin) and 23.2 mL/h (for gentamicin) to provide a mono-exponential decay of antibiotic concentrations.
In combined treatments simultaneous mono-exponential elimination of daptomycin and gentamicin was simulated; the model was modified according to the Blaser and Zinner principle [31]. Briefly, the model was supplemented with an additional flask with fresh CSMHB (200 mL) and the antibiotic with the longer half-life, i.e., daptomycin, at a concentration equal to those in the central unit. Similar to mono-treatments, in combined treatments peristaltic pumps circulated fresh nutrient medium to and antibiotic-containing medium (with both daptomycin and gentamicin) from the central unit at a flow rate that corresponds to the antibiotic with the shorter half-life, i.e., gentamicin (23.2 mL/h). To compensate for a too rapid daptomycin loss from the central unit peristaltic pumps transferred the fresh medium with daptomycin from the additional flask to the central unit at a flow rate equal to the difference between the rates of gentamicin and daptomycin—15.5 mL/h (23.2 mL/h–7.7 mL/h).
The operation procedure used in the pharmacodynamic experiments was as described elsewhere [29]. Antibiotic dosing and sampling of the central unit were processed automatically using computer-assisted controls. Each experiment was performed at least in duplicate. Before the start of the experiment, the system was filled with sterile CSMHB, and placed in an incubator at 37 °C. After that, the central unit was inoculated with an 18-h culture of bacteria and incubated for several hours, until exponentially growing cultures reached ~108 colony-forming units (CFU)/mL. Then antibiotics were administered into the central unit of the model. The duration of each experiment was 120 h.

4.5. Quantitation of the Antimicrobial Effects on the Resistant Subpopulations of S. aureus

To monitor the time courses of antibiotic-resistant subpopulations of S. aureus 293 in the pharmacodynamic experiments, the central unit of the model was multiply sampled throughout the observation period (120 h). The samples were serially diluted, if necessary, plated on Mueller–Hinton agar (MHA) with 2×, 4× and 8 × MIC of daptomycin or gentamicin, and incubated for up to 72 h at 37 °C. The viable counts were screened visually for growth. The lower limit of detection was 10 CFU/mL (equivalent to at least one colony per plate).
To characterize the time courses of S. aureus mutants resistant to 2 × MIC of antibiotic, the area under the bacterial mutant concentration–time curve (AUBCM) [32] was calculated from the onset to the end of the experiment (120 h) and corrected for the area under the lower limit of detection over the same time interval. For staphylococci resistant to daptomycin it was designed as AUBCM(D); for staphylococci resistant to gentamicin it was designed as AUBCM(G).

4.6. T>MPC Relationships with the Emergence of Resistance

The AUBCM(D)s and AUBCM(G)s, determined in simulated mono- and combined treatments (merged data), were plotted against T>MPC and fitted by the sigmoid function:
Y = Y0 + a/{1 + exp[−(x−x0)/b]},
where Y is AUBCM(D) or AUBCM(G), x is T>MPC, Y0 and a are the minimal and maximal values of the AUBCM, respectively, x0 is x corresponding to a/2, and b is a parameter reflecting sigmoidicity.
All calculations were performed using SigmaPlot 12 software (Systat Software Inc., headquartered in San Jose, CA, USA).

5. Conclusions

The present study suggests that (1) daptomycin–gentamicin combination restricts the development of daptomycin- and gentamicin-resistant S. aureus mutants; (2) the inhibition of resistant S. aureus mutants using daptomycin–gentamicin combinations can be predicted by MPCs determined at pharmacokinetic-based antibiotic concentration ratios, and (3) T>MPC is a reliable predictor of the anti-mutant efficacy of antibiotic combinations as studied using in vitro dynamic models.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/antibiotics10101148/s1, Figure S1: Time courses of subpopulations of S. aureus 293 resistant to 4×MIC of daptomycin (a,b) and gentamicin (c,d). Dosing regimens are indicated at each curve. Data are presented as arithmetic means ± standard deviations.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.A.F. and S.H.Z.; methodology, A.A.F., S.H.Z. and M.V.G.; software, Y.A.P.; validation, Y.A.P., M.V.G. and E.N.S.; formal analysis, Y.A.P. and M.V.G.; investigation, M.V.G. and E.N.S.; resources, A.A.F.; data curation, M.V.G., E.N.S. and Y.A.P.; writing—original draft preparation, M.V.G.; writing—review and editing, M.V.G.; E.N.S., Y.A.P. and S.H.Z.; visualization, Y.A.P.; supervision, A.A.F. and M.V.G.; project administration, A.A.F. and M.V.G.; funding acquisition, A.A.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research: performed in Gause Institute of New Antibiotics, was funded by Russian Science Foundation (RSF), grant number 18-15-00433.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The majority of the data supporting the results of this study are located in the Supplementary Materials of this manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Cervera, C.; Castañeda, X.; Pericas, J.M.; Del Río, A.; de la Maria, C.G.; Mestres, C.; Falces, C.; Marco, F.; Moreno, A.; Miró, J.M. Clinical utility of daptomycin in infective endocarditis caused by Gram-positive cocci. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2011, 3, 365–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Claeys, K.C.; Zasowski, E.J.; Casapao, A.M.; Lagnf, A.M.; Nagel, J.L.; Nguyen, C.T.; Hallesy, J.A.; Compton, M.T.; Kaye, K.S.; Levine, D.P.; et al. Daptomycin improves outcomes regardless of vancomycin MIC in a propensity-matched analysis of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infections. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2016, 60, 5841–5848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Fowler, V.G., Jr.; Boucher, H.W.; Corey, G.R.; Abrutyn, E.; Karchmer, A.W.; Rupp, M.E.; Levine, D.P.; Chambers, H.F.; Tally, F.P.; Vigliani, G.A.; et al. S. aureus Endocarditis and Bacteremia Study Group. Daptomycin versus standard therapy for bacteremia and endocarditis caused by Staphylococcus aureus. N. Engl. J. Med. 2006, 355, 653–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Moore, C.L.; Osaki-Kiyan, P.; Haque, N.Z.; Perri, M.B.; Donabedian, S.; Zervos, M.J. Daptomycin versus vancomycin for bloodstream infections due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus with a high vancomycin minimum inhibitory concentration: A case–control study. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2012, 54, 51–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Boyle-Vavra, S.; Jones, M.; Gourley, B.L.; Holmes, M.; Ruf, R.; Balsam, A.R.; Boulware, D.R.; Kline, S.; Jawahir, S.; Devries, A.; et al. Comparative genome sequencing of an isogenic pair of USA800 clinical methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolates obtained before and after daptomycin treatment failure. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2011, 55, 2018–2025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Cavalcante, F.S.; Ferreira, D.C.; Chamon, R.C.; da Costa, T.M.; Maia, F.; Barros, E.M.; Dantas, T.S.; Dos Santos, K.R. Daptomycin and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolated from a catheter-related bloodstream infection: A case report. BMC Res. Notes 2014, 7, 759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Dortet, L.; Anguel, N.; Fortineau, N.; Richard, C.; Nordmann, P. In vivo acquired daptomycin resistance during treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis. Int. J. Infect. Dis. 2013, 11, e1076–e1077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Sotillo, A.; Paño-Pardo, J.R.; López-Quintana, B.; Gómez-Gil, R. Development of daptomycin resistance during therapy in a patient with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis: A case report. Enferm. Infecc. Microbiol. Clin. 2016, 34, 534–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. LaPlante, K.L.; Woodmansee, S. Activities of daptomycin and vancomycin alone and in combination with rifampin and gentamicin against biofilm-forming methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolates in an experimental model of endocarditis. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2009, 53, 3880–3886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Miró, J.M.; García-de-la-Mària, C.; Armero, Y.; Soy, D.; Moreno, A.; del Río, A.; Almela, M.; Sarasa, M.; Mestres, C.A.; Gatell, J.M.; et al. Hospital Clinic Experimental Endocarditis Study Group. Addition of gentamicin or rifampin does not enhance the effectiveness of daptomycin in treatment of experimental endocarditis due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2009, 53, 4172–4177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Jiang, J.H.; Peleg, A.Y. Daptomycin-Nonsusceptible Staphylococcus aureus: The role of combination therapy with daptomycin and gentamicin. Genes 2015, 6, 1256–1267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Entenza, J.M.; Giddey, M.; Vouillamoz, J.; Moreillon, P. In vitro prevention of the emergence of daptomycin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus and enterococci following combination with amoxicillin/clavulanic acid or ampicillin. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2010, 35, 451–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Rose, W.E.; Leonard, S.N.; Rybak, M.J. Evaluation of daptomycin pharmacodynamics and resistance at various dosage regimens against Staphylococcus aureus isolates with reduced susceptibilities to daptomycin in an in vitro pharmacodynamic model with simulated endocardial vegetations. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2008, 52, 3061–3067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. LaPlante, K.L.; Rybak, M.J. Impact of high-inoculum Staphylococcus aureus on the activities of nafcillin, vancomycin, linezolid, and daptomycin, alone and in combination with gentamicin, in an in vitro pharmacodynamic model. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2004, 48, 4665–4672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Tsuji, B.T.; Rybak, M.J. Short-course gentamicin in combination with daptomycin or vancomycin against Staphylococcus aureus in an in vitro pharmacodynamic model with simulated endocardial vegetations. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2005, 49, 2735–2745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. Zinner, S.H.; Alieva, K.N.; Golikova, M.V.; Strukova, E.N.; Portnoy, Y.A.; Firsov, A.A. Anti-mutant efficacy of antibiotic combinations: In vitro model studies with linezolid and daptomycin. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2021, 76, 1832–1839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Zinner, S.H.; Golikova, M.V.; Strukova, E.N.; Portnoy, Y.A.; Firsov, A.A. Predicting antibiotic combination effects on the selection of resistant Staphylococcus aureus: In vitro model studies with linezolid and gentamicin. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2018, 52, 854–860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Firsov, A.A.; Golikova, M.V.; Strukova, E.N.; Portnoy, Y.A.; Dovzhenko, S.A.; Kobrin, M.B.; Zinner, S.H. Pharmacokinetically-based prediction of the effects of antibiotic combinations on resistant Staphylococcus aureus mutants: In vitro model studies with linezolid and rifampicin. J. Chemother. 2017, 29, 220–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Golikova, M.V.; Strukova, E.N.; Portnoy, Y.A.; Dovzhenko, S.A.; Kobrin, M.B.; Zinner, S.H.; Firsov, A.A. A novel parameter to predict the effects of antibiotic combinations on the development of Staphylococcus aureus resistance: In vitro model studies at subtherapeutic daptomycin and rifampicin exposures. J. Chemother. 2019, 17, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Allen, G.P.; Kaatz, G.W.; Rybak, M.J. Activities of mutant prevention concentration-targeted moxifloxacin and levofloxacin against Streptococcus pneumoniae in an in vitro pharmacodynamic model. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2003, 47, 2606–2614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Croisier, D.; Etienne, M.; Piroth, L.; Bergoin, E.; Lequeu, C.; Portier, H.; Chavanet, P. In vivo pharmacodynamic efficacy of gatifloxacin against Streptococcus pneumoniae in an experimental model of pneumonia: Impact of the low levels of fluoroquinolone resistance on the enrichment of resistant mutants. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2004, 54, 640–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Firsov, A.A.; Strukova, E.N.; Shlykova, D.S.; Portnoy, Y.A.; Kozyreva, V.K.; Edelstein, M.V.; Dovzhenko, S.A.; Kobrin, M.B.; Zinner, S.H. Bacterial resistance studies using in vitro dynamic models: The predictive power of the mutant prevention and minimum inhibitory antibiotic concentrations. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2013, 57, 4956–4962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  23. Firsov, A.A.; Portnoy, Y.A.; Strukova, E.N.; Shlykova, D.S.; Zinner, S.H. Predicting bacterial resistance using the time inside the mutant selection window: Possibilities and limitations. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2014, 44, 301–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Alieva, K.N.; Golikova, M.V.; Portnoy, Y.A.; Dovzhenko, S.A.; Kobrin, M.B.; Zinner, S.H.; Firsov, A.A. Concentration-dependent enrichment of resistant Enterococcus faecium exposed to linezolid in an in vitro dynamic model. J. Chemother. 2018, 30, 364–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Alieva, K.N.; Strukova, E.N.; Golikova, M.V.; Portnoy, Y.A.; Zinner, S.H.; Firsov, A.A. Time inside the mutant selection window as a predictor of staphylococcal resistance to linezolid. J. Antibiot. 2018, 71, 514–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Cobussen, M.; Stassen, P.M.; Posthouwer, D.; van Tiel, F.H.; Savelkoul, P.H.M.; Havenith, T.; Haeseker, M.B. Improving peak concentrations of a single dose regimen of gentamicin in patients with sepsis in the emergency department. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0210012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Demczar, D.J.; Nafziger, A.N.; Bertino, J.S., Jr. Pharmacokinetics of gentamicin at traditional versus high doses: Implications for once-daily aminoglycoside dosing. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 1997, 41, 1115–1119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Dvorchik, B.H.; Brazier, D.; DeBruin, M.F.; Arbeit, R.D. Daptomycin pharmacokinetics and safety following administration of escalating doses once daily to healthy subjects. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2003, 47, 1318–1323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Golikova, M.V.; Strukova, E.N.; Portnoy, Y.A.; Zinner, S.H.; Firsov, A.A. Verification of a novel approach to predicting effects of antibiotic combinations: In vitro dynamic model study with daptomycin and gentamicin against Staphylococcus aureus. Antibiotics 2020, 9, 538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Fuchs, P.C.; Barry, A.L.; Brown, S.D. Daptomycin susceptibility tests: Interpretive criteria, quality control, and effect of calcium on in vitro tests. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2000, 38, 51–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Blaser, J. In-vitro model for simultaneous simulation of the serum kinetics of two drugs with different half-lives. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 1985, 15, 125–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Firsov, A.A.; Smirnova, M.V.; Strukova, E.N.; Vostrov, S.N.; Portnoy, Y.A.; Zinner, S.H. Enrichment of resistant Staphylococcus aureus at ciprofloxacin concentrations simulated within the mutant selection window: Bolus versus continuous infusion. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2008, 32, 488–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Antibiotics 10 01148 g001 550
Figure 1. Determination of MPC of daptomycin (D) (a) and gentamicin (G) (b) alone and in combination at concentration ratio 1:1.5, respectively, against S. aureus 293.
Figure 1. Determination of MPC of daptomycin (D) (a) and gentamicin (G) (b) alone and in combination at concentration ratio 1:1.5, respectively, against S. aureus 293.
Antibiotics 10 01148 g001
Antibiotics 10 01148 g002 550
Figure 2. Time courses of subpopulations of S. aureus 293, resistant to 2 × MIC of daptomycin (a,b) and gentamicin (c,d). Dosing regimens are indicated at each curve. Data are presented as arithmetic means ± standard deviations.
Figure 2. Time courses of subpopulations of S. aureus 293, resistant to 2 × MIC of daptomycin (a,b) and gentamicin (c,d). Dosing regimens are indicated at each curve. Data are presented as arithmetic means ± standard deviations.
Antibiotics 10 01148 g002
Antibiotics 10 01148 g003 550
Figure 3. The enrichment of S. aureus 293 mutants resistant to 2 × MIC of daptomycin (a) or gentamicin (b) expressed as AUBCM, and the respective values of T>MPC (c,d). The parameter values are indicated over each bar. AUBCM data are presented as arithmetic means ± standard deviations.
Figure 3. The enrichment of S. aureus 293 mutants resistant to 2 × MIC of daptomycin (a) or gentamicin (b) expressed as AUBCM, and the respective values of T>MPC (c,d). The parameter values are indicated over each bar. AUBCM data are presented as arithmetic means ± standard deviations.
Antibiotics 10 01148 g003
Antibiotics 10 01148 g004 550
Figure 4. AUBCM(D) (a) and AUBCM(G) (b)—T>MPC relationships fitted by Equation (1): Y0 = 0, x0 = 9.612, a = 100.4 and b = −4.515 (a); Y0 = 0, x0 = 21.56, a = 559.3 and b = −0.5106 (b). Filled symbols—daptomycin, empty symbols—gentamicin, semi-filled symbols—antibiotic combination.
Figure 4. AUBCM(D) (a) and AUBCM(G) (b)—T>MPC relationships fitted by Equation (1): Y0 = 0, x0 = 9.612, a = 100.4 and b = −4.515 (a); Y0 = 0, x0 = 21.56, a = 559.3 and b = −0.5106 (b). Filled symbols—daptomycin, empty symbols—gentamicin, semi-filled symbols—antibiotic combination.
Antibiotics 10 01148 g004
Table
Table 1. MPCs (modal MPC estimation for a data set, n = 3) of daptomycin and gentamicin alone or in combination against Staphylococcus aureus 293. Measured MPC from each replicate was within one doubling of the modal MPC estimate.
Table 1. MPCs (modal MPC estimation for a data set, n = 3) of daptomycin and gentamicin alone or in combination against Staphylococcus aureus 293. Measured MPC from each replicate was within one doubling of the modal MPC estimate.
AntibioticDaptomycin-to-Gentamicin
AUC Ratio		RegimenMPC,
mg/L
Daptomycin-D3016
D10016
Daptomycin in the presence of gentamicin1:2D30+G652
1:5D30+G1601.2
1.5:1D100+G656
1:1.5D100+G1602
Gentamicin-G6510
G16010
Gentamicin in the presence of daptomycin1:2D30+G654
1.5:1D100+G654
1:5D30+G1606
1:1.5D100+G1603
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Golikova, M.V.; Strukova, E.N.; Portnoy, Y.A.; Zinner, S.H.; Firsov, A.A. MPC-Based Prediction of Anti-Mutant Effectiveness of Antibiotic Combinations: In Vitro Model Study with Daptomycin and Gentamicin against Staphylococcus aureus. Antibiotics 2021, 10, 1148. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics10101148

AMA Style

Golikova MV, Strukova EN, Portnoy YA, Zinner SH, Firsov AA. MPC-Based Prediction of Anti-Mutant Effectiveness of Antibiotic Combinations: In Vitro Model Study with Daptomycin and Gentamicin against Staphylococcus aureus. Antibiotics. 2021; 10(10):1148. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics10101148

Chicago/Turabian Style

Golikova, Maria V., Elena N. Strukova, Yury A. Portnoy, Stephen H. Zinner, and Alexander A. Firsov. 2021. "MPC-Based Prediction of Anti-Mutant Effectiveness of Antibiotic Combinations: In Vitro Model Study with Daptomycin and Gentamicin against Staphylococcus aureus" Antibiotics 10, no. 10: 1148. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics10101148

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop