Boorgula Gunavanthi D, Jakkula Laxmi U M R, Gumbo Tawanda, Jung Bockgie, Srivastava Shashikant
Department of Pulmonary Immunology, University of Texas Health Science Center at Tyler, Tyler, TX, United States.
Quantitative Preclinical and Clinical Sciences Department, Praedicare Inc., Dallas, TX, United States.
Front Pharmacol. 2021 Apr 15;12:645264. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2021.645264. eCollection 2021.
Rifamycins are integral part of the combination regimen for treatment of pulmonary [MAC] infection, but different practitioners prefer different rifamycins. The objective of the study was to compare microbial kill and resistance emergence of rifamycins using principles of pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics. First, we identified rifamycin MICs in 20 MAC isolates from patients followed by concentration-response studies in test-tubes. Next, we examined efficacy and resistance suppression of three doses of each rifamycin in the hollow fiber system model of pulmonary MAC [HFS-MAC], mimicking human like concentration-time profile of the drugs. HFS-MAC units were repetitively sampled for total and drug-resistant MAC burden and for drug concentration measurements. Inhibitory sigmoid E model, linear regression, and analysis of variance was used for data analysis. For rifabutin 90% of isolates had MIC ≤ 0.125 mg/L while for both rifampin and rifapentine this was ≤2.0 mg/L. There was no statistically significant difference ( > 0.05) in maximal kill and effective concentration mediating 50% of the bacterial kill among three rifamycins in the static concentration experiment. In the HFS-MAC, the bactericidal kill (day 0-4) for rifampin was 0.89 (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.43-1.35), for rifapentine was 1.05 (95% CI: 0.08-1.23), and for rifabutin was 0.92 (95% CI: 0.61-1.24) log CFU/ml, respectively. Rifamycins monotherapy failed after just 4-days of treatment and entire MAC population was drug resistant on day 26 of the study. There was no dose dependent difference in MAC kill or resistance suppression among the three rifamycins tested in the HFS-MAC. Therefore, replacing one rifamycin, due to emergence of drug-resistance, with other may not be beneficial in clinical setting.
利福霉素是治疗肺部[鸟分枝杆菌复合群(MAC)]感染联合治疗方案的重要组成部分,但不同的从业者更喜欢不同的利福霉素。本研究的目的是利用药代动力学/药效学原理比较利福霉素的微生物杀灭作用和耐药性出现情况。首先,我们确定了20株来自患者的MAC分离株中的利福霉素最低抑菌浓度(MIC),随后在试管中进行浓度-反应研究。接下来,我们在肺部MAC的中空纤维系统模型[HFS-MAC]中研究了每种利福霉素三剂的疗效和耐药性抑制情况,该模型模拟了药物在人体内的浓度-时间曲线。对HFS-MAC装置进行重复采样,以检测总的和耐药物的MAC负荷以及药物浓度。数据分析采用抑制性S形E模型、线性回归和方差分析。对于利福布汀,90%的分离株MIC≤0.125mg/L,而对于利福平和利福喷汀,这一数值≤2.0mg/L。在静态浓度实验中,三种利福霉素在最大杀灭作用和介导50%细菌杀灭的有效浓度方面,无统计学显著差异(P>0.05)。在HFS-MAC中,利福平的杀菌作用(第0 - 4天)为0.89(95%置信区间(CI):0.43 - 1.35)log CFU/ml,利福喷汀为1.05(95% CI:0.08 - 1.23)log CFU/ml,利福布汀为0.92(95% CI:0.61 - 1.24)log CFU/ml。利福霉素单药治疗仅4天后就失败了,在研究的第26天,整个MAC菌群都产生了耐药性。在HFS-MAC中测试的三种利福霉素之间,在MAC杀灭或耐药性抑制方面没有剂量依赖性差异。因此,在临床环境中,由于出现耐药性而用一种利福霉素替换另一种可能并无益处。