Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Dear Editor,
We thank De Sutter, De Waele, and Vermeulen for their comments and interest regarding our publication on the penetration of antibacterial agents into pulmonary epithelial lining fluid (ELF) [1, 2]. We agree that a timely review of this highly relevant topic was needed as a significant number of published studies occurred during the past decade and new antibacterial drug development programs are incorporating these clinical observations [2,3,4]. As we outlined, most of the intrapulmonary penetration studies have been conducted in healthy adult subjects using bronchoalveolar lavage to determine whether an antibacterial agent penetrated into ELF and in what amount [2, 5, 6]. Currently, there are a limited number of bronchoalveolar lavage studies measuring ELF concentrations in critically ill patients secondary to the practical and ethical issues associated with such research [2, 5].
We appreciate and applaud the authors’ interest in physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models and non-invasive sampling techniques for studying intrapulmonary concentrations in critically ill patients. The application of PBPK modeling has advanced over the last two decades and serves as another option for modeling and simulating concentration–time data using physiological and mechanistic approaches, in vitro information, and in silico methods [7]. This sophisticated and potentially complex analysis is being employed by academic, regulatory, and industry investigators to address drug selection and system-specific development issues (e.g., study design, first-in-human dosing, various dosage formulations, drug–drug interactions, and pharmacokinetic variability) in different patient populations even when drug exposure data may be difficult to determine [7, 8]. Several recently published manuscripts have documented the usefulness of PBPK modeling to predict systemic and pulmonary ELF exposure of antibacterial agents, including drugs being repurposed for COVID-19 [9,10,11,12].
When we first started conducting intrapulmonary penetration studies almost 30 years ago, lung tissue homogenates and comparison with concomitant plasma concentrations were still being advocated [13, 14]. Since that time, the paradigm has shifted to measuring specific sites of where bacterial lung infections occur (i.e., extracellular and intracellular drug concentrations), assessing in vivo pharmacodynamics of antibacterial agents in animal infection models, and applying population pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modeling and simulation for developing dosage regimens applicable to both research studies and/or clinical practice [2, 4, 5]. We acknowledge that measuring ELF concentrations and population-pharmacokinetic modeling are not a panacea for understanding intrapulmonary penetration of antibacterial agents and ensuring clinical success for the treatment of bacterial pneumonia. However, this current approach has advanced the importance of drug exposure in the lung and assisted in the dose selection of new (and old) antibacterial agents.
There is little doubt that the collection of site concentrations in critically ill patients is challenging and one of the major limitations of why there is limited ELF concentration–time data during drug development programs. Non-invasive techniques would surely improve the opportunities to collect lung concentrations to assist in the optimal design of dosage regimens for the treatment of critically ill patients with hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia. The use of exhaled breath condensate has already been used for non-invasive evaluation of lung diseases [15]. The combination of exhaled breath condensate samples with nanobiosensor sensitive analytical techniques and/or endogenous dilution markers (i.e., urea) should improve quantification issues of antibacterial concentrations [16,17,18]. However, further validation of these techniques will be needed and comparison to other sample collection methods of assessing intrapulmonary drug concentrations should be considered. Using real-world exhaled breath condensate concentrations and clinical information to perform PBPK modeling will however be challenging, appealing for critically ill patients during (and after) the drug development program for antibacterial agents. We encourage these types of investigations for measuring intrapulmonary concentrations of anti-infective agents and pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modeling options to improve the care of patients with lower respiratory tract infections.
References
De Sutter P-J, De Waele J, Vermeulen A. Comment on: “Penetration of antibacterial agents into pulmonary epithelial lining fluid: an update”. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40262-021-01100-3
Drwiega EN, Rodvold KA. Penetration of antibacterial agents into pulmonary epithelial lining fluid: an update. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40262-021-01061-7.
Rizk ML, Bhavnani SM, Drusano G, et al. Considerations for dose selection and clinical pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics for the development of antibacterial agents. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2019;63:e02309-e2318. https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.02309-18.
Ambrose PG, Bhavnani SM, Ellis-Grosse EJ, Drusano GL. Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic considerations in the design of hospital-acquired or ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia studies: look before you leap! Clin Infect Dis. 2010;51(Suppl. 1):S103–10. https://doi.org/10.1086/653057.
Rodvold KA, Hope WW, Boyd SE. Considerations for effect site pharmacokinetics to estimate drug exposure: concentrations of antibiotics in the lung. Curr Opin Pharmacol. 2017;36:114–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coph.2017.09.019.
Rodvold KA, George JM, Yoo L. Penetration of anti-infective agents into pulmonary epithelial lining fluid: focus on antibacterial agents. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2011;50(10):637–64. https://doi.org/10.2165/11594090-000000000-00000.
Peters SA. Physiological based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling and simulations: principles, methods, and applications in the pharmaceutical industry. 2nd ed. Hoboken: Wiley; 2022.
Shebley M, Sandhu P, Riedmaier AE, et al. Physiological based pharmacokinetic model qualification and reporting procedures for regulatory submissions: a consortium perspective. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2018;104(1):88–110. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpt.1013.
Themans P, Marquet P, Winkin JJ, Musuamba FT. Towards a generic tool for prediction of meropenem systemic and infection-site exposure: a physiological based pharmacokinetic model for adult patients with pneumonia. Drugs R D. 2019;19:177–89.
Salemo SN, Edginton A, Cohen-Wolkowiez M, et al. Development of an adult physiologically based pharmacokinetic model of solithromycin in plasma and epithelial lining fluid. CPT Pharmacomet Syst Pharmacol. 2017;6:814–33. https://doi.org/10.1002/psp4.12252.
Yeo KR, Zhang M, Pan X, et al. Impact of disease on plasma and lung exposure of chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin: application of PBPK modeling. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2020;108(5):976–84. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpt.1955.
Reddy VP, Elkhaeeb E, Jo H, et al. Pharmacokinetics under the COVID-19 storm! Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1111/bcp.14668.
Fish DN, Gotfried MH, Danziger LH, Rodvold KA. Penetration of clarithromycin into lung tissues from patients undergoing lung resection. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1994;38(4):876–8. https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.38.4.876.
Mouton JW, Theuretzbacher U, Craig WA, Tulkens PM, Derendorf H, Cars O. Tissue concentrations: do we ever learn? J Antimicrob Chemother. 2008;61(2):235–7. https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkm476.
Hunt J. Exhaled breath condensate: an evolving tool for noninvasive evaluation of lung disease. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2002;110:28–34. https://doi.org/10.1067/mai.2002.124966.
Ates HC, Mohsenin H, Wenzel C, et al. Biosensor-enabled multiplexed on-site therapeutic drug monitoring of antibiotics. Adv Mater. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.202104555.
Garzon V, Bustos R-H, Pinacho DG. Personalized medicine for antibiotics: the role of nanobiosensors in therapeutic drug monitoring. J Pers Med. 2020;10:147. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm10040147.
Kruizinga MD, Birkhoff WAJ, van Esdonk MJ, et al. Pharmacokinetics of intravenous and inhaled salbutamol and tobramycin: an exploratory study to investigate the potential of exhaled breath condensate as a matric for pharmacokinetic analysis. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2020;86(1):175–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/bcp.14156.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Funding
This response was not funded in whole or in part by any research grant or funding body.
Conflict of Interests/Competing Interests
Emily Drwiega has no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this letter. Keith Rodvold has conducted research and/or served as a consultant for intrapulmonary studies discussed in this letter for Cempra Pharmaceuticals, Cubist Pharmaceuticals, Durata Therapeutics, Entasis Therapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline, Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, Paretek Pharmaceuticals, Shionogi & Co., The Medicine Company/Rempex, and Wockhardt Ltd. Keith Rodvold has served on advisory boards, speaking bureaus, or as a consultant for Merck Inc., Shionogi & Co., Sinovent, Spero Therapeutics, The Medicine Company/Qpex Biopharma, and Venatorx Pharmaceuticals.
Ethics Approval
Not applicable.
Consent to Participate
Not applicable.
Consent for Publication
Not applicable.
Availability of Data and Material
Not applicable.
Code Availability
Not applicable.
Authors’ Contributions
Both authors made substantial contributions to the conception, drafting, and critically revising of the manuscript for important intellectual content. Both authors approved the final version of the manuscript.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Drwiega, E.N., Rodvold, K.A. Authors’ Reply to De Sutter, De Waele, and Vermeulen: “Penetration of Antibacterial Agents into Pulmonary Epithelial Lining Fluid: An Update”. Clin Pharmacokinet 61, 337–338 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40262-021-01101-2
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40262-021-01101-2