Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Modelling of Antibacterials In Vitro and In Vivo Using Bacterial Growth and Kill Kinetics

The Minimum Inhibitory Concentration versus Stationary Concentration

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
Clinical Pharmacokinetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) is the in vitro reference value to describe the activity of an antibacterial against micro-organisms. It does not represent the dynamic effect of the antimicrobial at any point in time, but rather the total antimicrobial effect over the incubation period at a fixed concentration.

Objective

To explore the concentration-effect relationship of antimicrobial concentrations against micro-organisms in relation to the MIC.

Methods

Time-kill curves were generated for ceftazidime, meropenem and tobramycin against Pseudomonas aeruginosa. The Hill equation with variable slope was fit to the time-kill data, and mathematical models of growth and kill were explored with reference to the MIC.

Results

With declining concentrations, bacterial killing will decrease until a specific threshold concentration is reached. This concentration, at which bacteria are neither killed nor able to grow, is named the stationary concentration (SC) and is not equal to the MIC. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic simulations over a range of kill rates, growth rates and slope factors showed that for β-lactam antibacterials, the SC is close to the MIC value, which may explain why concentrations in vivo need to be above the MIC, while regrowth of bacteria occurs when concentrations decline below the MIC. For concentration-dependent antibacterials, such as aminoglycosides and quinolones, the SC is shown to be markedly different from the MIC and, in general, is much lower.

Conclusion

The MIC is not a good pharmacodynamic parameter to characterise the concentration effect relationship of a given antimicrobial. For ‘concentration independent’ antimicrobials the SC is likely to be close to the MIC, but may be much lower for ‘concentration dependent’ antimicrobials, and may explain sub-MIC effects.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Table I
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Craig WA. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic parameters: rationale for antibacterial dosing of mice and men. Clin Infect Dis 1998; 26(1): 1–10

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Nolting A, Derendorf H. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modelling of antibiotics. In: Derendorf H, Hochhaus G, editors. Handbook of pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic correlation. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press, 1995: 363–88

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bouvier d’Yvoire MJY, Maire PH. Dosage regimens of antibacterials: implications of a pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic model. Clin Drug Invest 1996; 11: 229–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. Methods for dilution antimicrobial susceptibility tests for bacteria that grow aerobically: approved standard M7-A5. Wayne (NB): NCCLS, 2000

    Google Scholar 

  5. Andrews JM. Determination of minimum inhibitory concentrations. J Antimicrob Chemother 2001; 48 Suppl. 1: 5–16

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Mouton JW, Dudley MN, Cars O, et al. Standardization of pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) terminology for anti-infective drugs. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2002; 19(4): 355–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Mouton JW, Vinks AA, Punt NC. Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modeling of activity of ceftazidime during continuous and intermittent infusion. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1997; 41(4): 733–8

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. White CA, Toothaker RD, Smith AL, et al. In vitro evaluation of the determinants of bactericidal activity of ampicillin dosing regimens against Escherichia coli. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1989; 33(7): 1046–51

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. White CA, Toothaker RD, Smith AL, et al. Correction for bacterial loss in in vitro dilution models. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1987; 31(11): 1859–60

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Zhi JG, Nightingale CH, Quintiliani R. Microbial pharmaco-dynamics of piperacillin in neutropenic mice of systematic infection due to Pseudomonas aeruginosa. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 1988; 16(4): 355–75

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Mattie H, van Dokkum AM, Brus-Weijer L, et al. Antibacterial activity of four cephalosporins in an experimental infection in relation to in vitro effect and pharmacokinetics. J Infect Dis 1990; 162(3): 717–22

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Corvaisier S, Maire PH, Bouvier d’Yvoire MY, et al. Comparisons between antimicrobial pharmacodynamic indices and bacterial killing as described by using the Zhi model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1998; 42(71): 1731–7

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. EUCAST. Determination of minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of antibacterial agents by broth dilution: discussion document E.Dis 5.1 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.escmid.org/Seviware/Script/SvFiles.asp?.Ref=359 [Accessed 2004 Oct 8]

  14. Vogelman B, Craig WA. Kinetics of antimicrobial activity. J Pediatr 1986; 108 (5 Pt 2): 835–40

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Mouton JW, Vinks AATMM, Punt N, et al. Pharmacokinetic pharmacodynamic modelling of bacterial killing in vivo [abstract]. Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy; 1997 Sep 28–Oct 1; Toronto

    Google Scholar 

  16. Knudsen JD, Frimodt-Moller N, Espersen F. Pharmacodynamics of penicillin are unaffected by bacterial growth phases of Streptococcus pneumoniae in the mouse peritonitis model. J Antimicrob Chemother 1998; 41(4): 451–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Zhi J, Nightingale CH, Quintiliani R. A pharmacodynamic model for the activity of antibiotics against microorganisms under nonsaturable conditions. J Pharm Sci 1986; 75(11): 1063–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. den Hollander JG, Mouton JW, van Goor MP, et al. Alteration of postantibiotic effect during one dosing interval of tobramycin, simulated in an in vitro pharmacokinetic model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1996; 40(3): 784–6

    Google Scholar 

  19. Tuomanen E. Phenotypic tolerance: the search for beta-lactam antibiotics that kill nongrowing bacteria. Rev Infect Dis 1986; 8 Suppl. 3: S279–91

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Smith H. Questions on the determinants of bacterial growth in vivo [online]. Available from URL: http://www.worldscibooks.com/medsci/p233.html [Accessed 2004 Oct 8]

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Dr Herman Mattie for critically reading the manuscript. No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this study. The authors have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this study

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital, Weg door Jonkerbos 100, 6532 SZ, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Johan W. Mouton

  2. Pediatric Pharmacology Research Unit, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA

    Alexander A. Vinks

Authors
  1. Johan W. Mouton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alexander A. Vinks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Johan W. Mouton.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mouton, J.W., Vinks, A.A. Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Modelling of Antibacterials In Vitro and In Vivo Using Bacterial Growth and Kill Kinetics. Clin Pharmacokinet 44, 201–210 (2005). https://doi.org/10.2165/00003088-200544020-00005

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00003088-200544020-00005

Keywords

Search

Navigation