Back

Tigecycline pharmacodynamics in the hollow fiber system of Mycobacterium avium-complex lung disease, and the utility of MICs and time-kill studies in drug development

Deshpande, D.; Srivastava, S.; Gumbo, T.

2025-08-01 pharmacology and toxicology
10.1101/2025.07.29.667481 bioRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundGuideline-based therapy (GBT) drugs for Mycobacterium avium-complex (MAC) lung disease (LD) were chosen in part because they have low MICs. Despite these low MICs, GBT achieves six-month sustained sputum culture conversion in only 43% of patients. MethodsFirst, we co-incubated tigecycline with MAC for seven days in time-kill studies and calculated the exposure mediating 50% of maximal effect (Emax) or EC50. Next, we performed tigecycline exposure-effect studies in the hollow fiber system of MAC (HFS-MAC) inoculated with the reference ATCC#700898 isolate. Third, we performed an exposure-effect study in the HFS-MAC inoculated with 5 different isolates. Finally, the target exposure (EC80) was used to identify a clinical dose of inhaled tigecycline for MAC-LD in 10,000 subject Monte Carlo experiments (MCE). ResultsIn time-kill studies the EC50 was 0-24h area under the concentration-time curve-to-MIC (AUC0-24/MIC) of 62.24 for extracellular and 0.14 for intracellular MAC (p<0.001). In the HFS-MAC inoculated with ATCC#700898, the EC50 statistically differed between sampling days by 2,370.7%. However, studies with five different isolates demonstrated a stable and robust day-to-day EC50 (%CV=18.18%), with an EC80 AUC0-24/MIC of 33.65. The Emax was 4.84 log10 CFU/mL. In MCE, tigecycline inhalational doses of 35-40 mg/day achieved the EC80 target in >90% of virtual patients, with and an MIC breakpoint of 256 mg/L. ConclusionTime-kill studies do not inform on PK/PD target exposures or extent of kill. Inclusion of multiple MAC isolates in HFS-MAC studies improves precision of pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic parameter estimates. Tigecycline via the inhalational route could contribute to treatment of MAC-LD.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
European Respiratory Journal
54 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
40.2%
2
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
167 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
14.6%
50% of probability mass above
3
The Journal of Infectious Diseases
182 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
4.9%
4
Frontiers in Pharmacology
100 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
4.2%
5
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 43%
2.8%
6
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 43%
2.8%
7
Clinical and Translational Science
21 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.8%
8
Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics
25 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.1%
9
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 55%
1.8%
10
Molecular Pharmaceutics
16 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
11
Journal of Controlled Release
39 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.7%
12
Microbiology Spectrum
435 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.4%
13
Clinical Infectious Diseases
231 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
14
Thorax
32 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.8%
15
Clinical and Translational Medicine
30 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.8%
16
JCI Insight
241 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.7%
17
International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents
15 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.7%
18
Bioengineering & Translational Medicine
21 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.7%
19
eBioMedicine
130 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%
20
Environmental Research
46 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
21
Frontiers in Immunology
586 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.7%
22
ACS Pharmacology & Translational Science
40 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%
23
F1000Research
79 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.5%