Skip to content
1887

Abstract

In antibiotic chemotherapy, an antimicrobial agent is selected based on MIC, which is determined by a test method using the principle of the broth microdilution. However, it does not provide a viable count in the mutant selection window. In this study, we used turbidimetry and visual judgement to examine the validity of the selection of various antibiotics to treat based on MIC determination after 24 h of incubation.

The antibiotics used in this study were piperacillin (PIPC), imipenem (IPM), meropenem, ciprofloxacin and amikacin (AMK). The strains used were 30 . strains clinically isolated that were susceptible to all the antibiotics used, and the standard PAO1 strain. The viable count was measured after exposure for 3 and 24 h to therapeutic concentrations of various antibiotics, at which time turbidity was examined visually or by transmittance. In addition, the MPCs of IPM and PIPC were measured.

In this study, 10²–10⁸ c.f.u. ml of survived exposure to PIPC, IPM and AMK at concentrations 2.5–80 times the MIC despite high drug concentrations. No turbidity was observed in the culture medium. Furthermore, both IPM and PIPC showed high mutant prevention concentration (MPC), with 64.5% of strains in IPM and 10% of strains in PIPC showing intermediate or resistance after 24 h.

Choosing an appropriate antibiotic based on exceeding the MIC may be insufficient. While the PK/PD theory focuses on MIC, measuring MPC alongside MIC is urgent in clinical practice for optimal antibiotic selection.

Funding
This study was supported by the:
  • Shinnihon Foundation of Advanced Medical Treatment Research
    • Principal Award Recipient: YurinaTamura
  • This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.002093
2025-11-14
2025-12-09

Metrics

Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jmm/74/11/jmm002093.html?itemId=/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.002093&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Roberts JA, Abdul-Aziz MH, Lipman J, Mouton JW, Vinks AA et al. Individualised antibiotic dosing for patients who are critically ill: challenges and potential solutions. Lancet Infect Dis 2014; 14:498–509 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  2. The European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) EUCAST reading guide for broth microdilution, version 5.0. 2024; 2024 https://www.eucast.org/ast_of_bacteria/mic_determination
  3. Clinical and laboratory standards institute (CLSI) Methods for Dilution Antimicrobial Susceptibility Tests for Bacteria That Grow Aerobically. CLSI standard M07 2024
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Hagel S, Bach F, Brenner T, Bracht H, Brinkmann A et al. Effect of therapeutic drug monitoring-based dose optimization of piperacillin/tazobactam on sepsis-related organ dysfunction in patients with sepsis: a randomized controlled trial. Intensive Care Med 2022; 48:311–321 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Vassilara F, Galani I, Souli M, Papanikolaou K, Giamarellou H et al. Mechanisms responsible for imipenem resistance among Pseudomonas aeruginosa clinical isolates exposed to imipenem concentrations within the mutant selection window. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2017; 88:276–281 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Logre E, Enser M, Tanaka S, Dubert M, Claudinon A et al. Amikacin pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic in intensive care unit: a prospective database. Ann Intensive Care 2020; 10:75 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Chen Y, Wang Y, Guo B, Fan Y, Wu H et al. A simple and rapid HPLC-MS/MS method for therapeutic drug monitoring of amikacin in dried matrix spots. J Chromatogr B Analyt Technol Biomed Life Sci 2023; 1220:123592 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Atrissi J, Milan A, Bressan R, Lucafò M, Petix V et al. Interplay of Opdp porin and chromosomal carbapenemases in the determination of carbapenem resistance/susceptibility in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Microbiol Spectr 2021; 9:e0118621 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Epp SF, Köhler T, Plésiat P, Michéa-Hamzehpour M, Frey J et al. C-terminal region of Pseudomonas aeruginosa outer membrane porin OprD modulates susceptibility to meropenem. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2001; 45:1780–1787 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Yayan J, Ghebremedhin B, Rasche K. Antibiotic resistance of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in pneumonia at a single university hospital center in Germany over a 10-year period. PLoS One 2015; 10:e0139836 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Santella B, Serretiello E, De Filippis A, Veronica F, Iervolino D et al. Lower respiratory tract pathogens and their antimicrobial susceptibility pattern: a 5-year study. Antibiotics 2021; 10:851 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Terahara F, Nishiura H. Carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa and carbapenem use in Japan: an ecological study. J Int Med Res 2019; 47:4711–4722 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Cunha CB. Principles and Practice of Antimicrobial Stewardship. In Schlossberg’s Clinical Infectious DiseaseSection 25 Antimicrobial Therapy: General Considerations, 3rd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2021 pp 1343–1348
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.002093
Loading
/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.002093
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An error occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error