期刊文献+

国产与原研利奈唑胺对革兰阳性菌体外PK/PD比较研究 被引量:2

Comparison of antibacterial efficacy of generic and branded linezolid against Gram-positive bacteria with in vitro pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics model
下载PDF
导出
摘要 目的通过体外药动学(PK)/药效学(PD)研究,比较国产利奈唑胺(恒捷)及原研利奈唑胺(斯沃)对革兰阳性菌的抗菌效果。方法利用体外PK自动模拟系统PASS400持续24 h模拟国产及原研利奈唑胺(600mg iv.q12 h,静滴0.5 h)对金黄色葡萄球菌ATCC25923,耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌52118、耐甲氧西林表皮葡萄球菌54994、耐万古霉素屎肠球菌52820临床分离株的时间杀菌曲线及体外PD参数,使用GraphPad Prism 8.0分析数据。结果研究菌株对国产与原研利奈唑胺均敏感,最低抑菌浓度0.25~1μg/mL。在预设给药方式下,两种利奈唑胺对测定细菌均具有良好杀菌效应,且二者杀菌效果一致,24 h内二者时间杀菌曲线几乎重叠。PD参数中,两种利奈唑胺对4株细菌最大杀菌量(MKD)及24 h杀菌量(ΔlgN_(24))均接近2 lgCFU/mL,杀菌曲线下面积在23~33 lgCFU/(mL·h)之间,再生至初始菌量时间均大于24 h,54994菌株组杀菌曲线与空白对照对照曲线面积差接近13lgCFU/(mL·h),其余各组I_(E)(药物杀菌曲线与细菌生长空白对照曲线面积差)均在29~35 lgCFU/(mL·h)之间,两种药物对4株细菌杀菌速率浮动于约0.1~0.7 lgCFU/(mL·h)之间。国产与原研利奈唑胺各组间PD参数均无差异。结论国产利奈唑胺(恒捷)与原研利奈唑胺(斯沃)对常见革兰阳性菌具有相似的体外PK/PD特征及杀菌效应。 Objective To compare the antibacterial efficacy of generic and branded linezolid against Grampositive bacteria with in vitro pharmacokinetics(PK)/pharmacodynamics(PD)model.Methods The in vitro PK simulation system PASS400 was used to simulate the concentration-time curve after intravenous administration of linezolid at 600 mg q12 h for 24 hours(infusion time of 0.5 h).The bactericidal curves and PK/PD parameters of generic and branded linezolid against the reference strain of Staphylococcus aureus(ATCC25923),clinical strains of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus 52,118,methicillin-resistant coagulase-negative Staphylococcus epidermidis 54994 and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium 52,820 were compared.The GraphPad Prism 8.0 software was used for data analysis.Results All the four selected strains were susceptible to both generic and branded linezolid,and the minimum inhibitory concentrations were 0.25~1μg/mL.Both agents demonstrated outstanding and similar bactericidal effects,and their bacterial sterilization curves were almost unanimous.For the two agents,the maximum kill down was close to 2 lgCFU/mL,the area under kill curves was between 23~33 lgCFU/(mL·h),and the bacterial re-growth time was longer than 24 hours.The area difference between the control growth and bacterial killing curves against 54994 was around 13 lgCFU/(mL·h),and all against the others were 29~35 lgCFU/(mL·h),killing rate of the two agents against the four strains fluctuated between about 0.1~0.7 lgCFU/(mL·h).All PD parameters showed no difference between the generic and branded linezolid.Conclusion The generic and branded linezolid showed similar in vitro bactericidal ability and in vitro PK/PD effects against Gram positive bacteria.
作者 杨凯 张舜天 黄晨 王雪婷 嵇金如 沈萍 肖永红 Yang Kai;Zhang Shun-tian;Huang Chen;Wang Xue-ting;Ji Jin-ru;Shen Ping;Xiao Yong-hong(State Key Laboratory for Diagnosis and Treatment of Infectious Disease,the First Affiliated Hospital,Zhejiang University School of Medicine,Hangzhou 310003;Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine,Ningbo Medical Center Li Huili Hospital,Ningbo 315040)
出处 《中国抗生素杂志》 CAS CSCD 北大核心 2023年第2期209-214,共6页 Chinese Journal of Antibiotics
关键词 利奈唑胺 药动学/药效学 国产药 原研药 体外 Linezolid Pharmacokinetics/Pharmacodynamics Generic Branded In vitro
  • 相关文献

参考文献8

二级参考文献71

  • 1社区获得性肺炎诊断和治疗指南[J].中华结核和呼吸杂志,2006,29(10):651-655. 被引量:3055
  • 2ROBERT CM JR. Linezolid: the first oxazolidinone antimicrobial [J]. Ann Intern Med, 2003, 138(2) : 135 - 142.
  • 3Grasso S,Meinardi G,de Carneri I. New in vitro model to study the effect of antibiotic concentration and rate of elimination on antibacterial activity[J].{H}Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy,1978,(4):570-576.
  • 4Shah P M. An improved method to study antibacterial activity of antibiotics in an in vitro model simulating serum levels[J].{H}Methods and Findings in Experimental and Clinical Pharmacology,1980,(4):171-176.
  • 5Navashin S M,Fomina I P,Firsov A A. A dynamic model for in-vitro evaluation of antimicrobial action by simulation of the pharmacokinetic profiles of antibiotics[J].{H}Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy,1989,(3):389-399.
  • 6Nicasio A M,Bulitta J B,Lodise T P. Evaluation of once-daily vancomycin against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in a hollow-fiber infection model[J].{H}Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy,2012,(2):682-686.
  • 7Zhanel G G,Yachison C,Nichol K. Assessment of the activity of ceftaroline against clinical isolates of penicillin-intermediate and penicillin-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae with elevated MICs of ceftaroline using an in vitro pharmacodynamic model[J].{H}Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy,2012,(7):1706-1711.
  • 8Bonapace C R,Friedrich LV,Bosso J A. Determination of antibiotic effect in an in vitro pharmacodynamic model:comparison with an established animal model of infection[J].{H}Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy,2002,(11):3574-3579.
  • 9Zinner S H,Lubenko I Y,Gilbert D. Emergence of resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae in an in vitro dynamic model that simulates moxifloxacin concentrations inside and outside the mutant selection window:related changes in susceptibility,resistance frequency and bacterial killing[J].{H}Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy,2003,(4):616-622.
  • 10MacGowan A P,Rogers C A,Holt H A. Activities of moxifloxacin against,and emergence of resistance in,Streptococcus pneumoniae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa in an in vitro pharmacokinetic model[J].{H}Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy,2003,(3):1088-1095.

共引文献106

同被引文献15

引证文献2

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部