Effect of protein binding on serum bactericidal activities of ceftazidime and cefoperazone in healthy volunteers

Y W Lam, M H Duroux, J G Gambertoglio, S L Barriere, B J Guglielmo, Y W Lam, M H Duroux, J G Gambertoglio, S L Barriere, B J Guglielmo

Abstract

The effect of protein binding on antibiotic efficacy is controversial. The pharmacologic effect of an antibiotic is believed to be related to its unbound concentration at the site of infection. It is unknown whether antibiotics with a low degree of serum protein binding are clinically superior to antibiotics that are highly protein bound. In a randomized, crossover investigation, the serum bactericidal activities of a single dose of ceftazidime (30 mg/kg) and cefoperazone (30 mg/kg) were studied in six healthy volunteers against three clinical isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa for which both antibiotics had similar MICs and MBCs. Serum samples were collected over 12 h. The total and unbound antibiotic concentrations were determined by high-pressure liquid chromatography. Mean peak total concentrations of ceftazidime and cefoperazone in serum were 101.7 +/- 18.6 and 264.1 +/- 149.6 micrograms/ml, respectively. Due to its lower protein binding (21 +/- 6%), ceftazidime had significantly higher unbound concentrations in serum than did the highly bound cefoperazone (91.5 +/- 2%). Mean peak unbound concentrations were 78.5 +/- 12.5 and 24.2 +/- 17.8 micrograms/ml for ceftazidime and cefoperazone, respectively. The unbound concentration of ceftazidime at each sampling time was higher than that of cefoperazone. Although total concentrations were consistently higher than the MICs, serum containing cefoperazone showed minimal bactericidal activity against the isolates. In contrast, despite lower total concentrations, ceftazidime had greater antibacterial activity than cefoperazone. Serum bactericidal activity was more closely related to unbound rather than total antibiotic concentrations. Our data support the concept that only the unbound drug is microbiologically active.

References

    1. Rev Infect Dis. 1981 Jan-Feb;3(1):28-37
    1. J Infect Dis. 1972 Nov;126(5):492-7
    1. J Infect Dis. 1980 Jul;142(1):77-82
    1. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1982 Jun;21(6):873-80
    1. J Infect Dis. 1978 May;137 Suppl:S161-S168
    1. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1978 Oct;14(4):533-8
    1. Am J Med. 1976 Oct;61(4):493-7
    1. Drugs. 1981;22 Suppl 1:52-9
    1. Rev Infect Dis. 1984 Nov-Dec;6 Suppl 4:S870-4
    1. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1983 Mar;11(3):233-8
    1. Chemotherapy. 1976;22(3-4):183-9
    1. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1983 Jul;12(1):1-18
    1. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1983 Nov;12(5):475-80
    1. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1978 Apr;13(4):570-6
    1. J Infect Dis. 1981 Oct;144(4):380-5
    1. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1985 Nov;28(5):654-9
    1. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1972 Sep-Oct;13(5):724-32
    1. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1985 Jul;16(1):49-59
    1. J Infect Dis. 1973 Aug;128(2):170-7
    1. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1987 Jun;31(6):895-8
    1. Br J Pharmacol Chemother. 1965 Dec;25(3):638-50
    1. Clin Pharmacokinet. 1977 Jul-Aug;2(4):252-68
    1. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1973 Nov 26;226:214-24
    1. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1983 Aug;12(2):105-18
    1. J Bacteriol. 1947 May;53(5):581-95

Source: PubMed

3
Tilaa