Advertisement

In Vitro Performance and Analysis of Combination Anti-infective Evaluations

  • Robert W. Buckheit
  • R. Dwayne Lunsford
Part of the Infectious Disease book series (ID)

The evaluation of the activity of combinations of two or more anti-infective compounds has gained signifi cant prominence in light of the innate ability of many infectious organisms to rapidly acquire drug resistance. Pathogens react to the administration of anti-infective agents by the outgrowth of preexisting infectious clones with resistance-engendering mutations and by the accumulation of new mutations to allow an escape from the suppressive effects of therapeutic drug regimens (1). Resistance emerges through the error-prone mechanisms of the replicative machinery and through the transmission of resistance elements (2, 3), rendering monotherapeutic drug strategies problematic. Combination chemotherapy signifi cantly decreases the risk that resistance will arise. In addition, a combination chemotherapy may ameliorate toxicity by permitting lower, less toxic, or nontoxic concentrations of synergistic drugs to be utilized.

Keywords

Dose Response Curve Antimicrob Agent Combination Index Infectious Organism Fractional Inhibitory Concentration Index 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Kucers A, Crowe S, Grayson M, Hoy J. The Use of Antibiotics: A Clinical Review of Antibacterial Antifungal and Antiviral Drugs. Rochester, Kent, Great Britain, 1997.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Courvalin P. Antimicrobial drug resistance: “prediction is very difficult, especially about the future”. Emerg Infect Dis 2005; 11:1503–6.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wainberg MA. The emergence of HIV resistance and new antiret-rovirals: are we winning? Drug Resist Updat 2004; 7:163–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Larder BA, Kellam P, Kemp SD. Convergent combination therapy can select viable multidrug-resistant HIV-1 in vitro. Nature 1993; 365:451–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Watanabe T, Kamisaki Y, Timmerman H. Convergence and divergence, a concept for explaining drug actions. J Pharmacol Sci 2004; 96:95–100.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Buckheit RW, Jr., Hollingshead M, Stinson S, et al. Efficacy, pharma-cokinetics, and in vivo antiviral activity of UC781, a highly potent, orally bioavailable nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor of HIV type 1. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses 1997; 13:789–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Azad RF, Brown-Driver V, Buckheit RW, Jr., Anderson KP. Antiviral activity of a phosphorothioate oligonucleotide complementary to human cytomegalovirus RNA when used in combination with antiviral nucleoside analogs. Antiviral Res 1995; 28:101–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brogden K, Guthmiller J. Polymicrobial Diseases. National Animal Disease Center, USDA Agricultural Research Service, Ames, IA, 2002.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bevilacqua S, Rabaud C, May T. [HIV-tuberculosis coinfection]. Ann Med Interne (Paris) 2002; 153:113–8.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bateman DN. Clinical toxicology: clinical science to public health. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol 2005; 32:995–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Spector SA, Kennedy C, McCutchan JA, et al. The antiviral effect of zidovudine and ribavirin in clinical trials and the use of p24 antigen levels as a virologic marker. J Infect Dis 1989; 159:822–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Frei E, Antman K. Combination chemotherapy, dose and schedule. In: Weichselbaum R, ed. Cancer Medicine. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins, 1997, pp 817–37.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Reynolds CP, Maurer BJ. Evaluating response to antineoplastic drug combinations in tissue culture models. Methods Mol Med 2005; 110:173–83.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Prichard MN, Shipman C, Jr. A three-dimensional model to analyze drug–drug interactions. Antiviral Res 1990; 14:181–205.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chou TC, Talalay P. Quantitative analysis of dose—effect relationships: the combined effects of multiple drugs or enzyme inhibitors. Adv Enzyme Regul 1984; 22:27–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bilello JA, Bauer G, Dudley MN, Cole GA, Drusano GL. Effect of 2′,3′-didehydro-3′-deoxythymidine in an in vitro hollow-fiber pharmacodynamic model system correlates with results of dose-ranging clinical studies. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1994; 38:1386–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bilello JA, Bilello PA, Kort JJ, et al. Efficacy of constant infusion of A-77003, an inhibitor of the human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) protease, in limiting acute HIV-1 infection in vitro. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1995; 39:2523–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Drusano GL, Prichard M, Bilello PA, Bilello JA. Modeling combinations of antiretroviral agents in vitro with integration of pharma-cokinetics: guidance in regimen choice for clinical trial evaluation. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1996; 40:1143–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    FDA. Antiviral Drug Development: Conducting Virology Studies and Submitting the Data to the Agency.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rice WG, Bader JP. Discovery and in vitro development of AIDS antiviral drugs as biopharmaceuticals. Adv Pharmacol 1995; 33:389–438.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Buckheit R. Specialized anti-HIV testing: expediting preclinical drug development. Drug Inf J 1997; 31:13–22.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Prichard MN, Shipman C, Jr. Analysis of combinations of antiviral drugs and design of effective multidrug therapies. Antivir Ther 1996; 1:9–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    FDA. Guidance for Industry Bioanalytical Method Validation, 2001.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mocroft A, Vella S, Benfield TL, et al. Changing patterns of mortality across Europe in patients infected with HIV-1. EuroSIDA Study Group. Lancet 1998; 352:1725–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Palella FJ, Jr., Delaney KM, Moorman AC, et al. Declining morbidity and mortality among patients with advanced human immunodeficiency virus infection. HIV Outpatient Study Investigators. N Engl J Med 1998; 338:853–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Berenbaum MC. The expected effect of a combination of agents: the general solution. J Theor Biol 1985; 114:413–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Chou T, Rideout D. Synergism and Antagonism in Chemotherapy. New York: Academic, 1991.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Copenhaver T, Lin T, Goldenberg M. Joint Drug Action: A Review. Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, Biopharm Section, 1987, pp 160–164.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Greco WR, Bravo G, Parsons JC. The search for synergy: a critical review from a response surface perspective. Pharmacol Rev 1995; 47:331–85.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hall M, Duncan B. Antiviral drug and interferon combinations. In: Field R, ed. Antiviral Agents: The Development and Assessment of Antiviral Chemotherapy. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1988, pp 29–34.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kodell R, Pounds J. Assisting the toxicity of mixtures of chemicals. In: Krewski C, ed. Statistics in Toxicology. New York: Gordon & Breach, 1991, pp 359–91.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Chou J, Chou T. Dose effect analysis with macrocomputers. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1987.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Loewe S, Muischnek H. Kombinations-Wirkungen.1: Mittelilung: hilfsmittle der fragestel-lun. Arch Exp Pathol Pharmacol 1926; 114:313–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Fraser T. The antagonism between the actions of active substances. BMJ 1872; 485–7.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Fraser T. An experimental research on the antagonism between the actions of physostigma and atropia. Proc R Soc Edinb 1870; 7:506–11.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Loewe S. The problem of synergism and antagonism of combined drugs. Arzneimittelforschung 1953; 3:285–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Berenbaum M. Criteria for analyzing interactions between biologically active agents. 1981; 78:90–8.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Gessner P. The isobolographic method applied to drug interactions. In: Cohen S, ed. Drug Interactions, Vol. 1974. New York: Raven, 1974, pp 349–62.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wessinger W. Approaches to the study of drug interactions in behavioral pharmacology. Neurosci Behav Rev 1976; 10:103–13.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Berenbaum MC. What is synergy? Pharmacol Rev 1989; 41:93–141.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Meadows SL, Gennings C, Carter WH, Jr., Bae DS. Experimental designs for mixtures of chemicals along fixed ratio rays. Environ Health Perspect 2002; 110 Suppl 6:979–83.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Galdwin A, Mantel N. The employment of combinations of drugs in the chemotherapy of neoplasia: a review. Cancer Res 1957; 17:635–54.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Greco WR, Park HS, Rustum YM. Application of a new approach for the quantitation of drug synergism to the combination of cis-diamminedichloroplatinum and 1-beta-d-arabinofuranosylcytosine. Cancer Res 1990; 50:5318–27.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Greco W, Unkelback H-D, Pisch G, et al. Consensus on concepts and terminology for combined action assessment. Arch Complex Environ Stud 1992; 4:65.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Poch G. Dose factor of potentiation derived from isoboles. Arzneimittelforschung 1980; 30:2195–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Prichard M, Shipman C. Letter to the editor in response to J. Suhnel's comment on the paper “A three-dimensional model to analyze drug—drug interactions”. Antiviral Res 1992; 384–93.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Suhnel J. Comment on the paper: A three-dimensional model to analyze drug—drug interactions. Prichard, M.N. and Shipman, C., Jr. (1990) Antiviral Res 14, 181–206. Antiviral Res 1992; 17:91–8.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Chou TC, Talalay P. A simple generalized equation for the analysis of multiple inhibitions of Michaelis—Menten kinetic systems. J Biol Chem 1977; 252:6438–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Chou T, Talalay P. Analysis of combined drug effects: a new look at a very old problem. Trends Pharmacol Sci 1983; 4:450–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Bliss C. The toxicity of poisons applied jointly. Ann Appl Biol 1939; 26:385–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Derwinko B, Lou T, Brown B, Gottleib J, Freidreich F. Combination chemotherapy in vitro with adriamycin observations of additive, antagonistic and synergistic effects when using two-drug combination on cultured human lymphoma cells. Cancer Biochem Biophys 1976; 1:187–95.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Valeriote F, Lin H. Synergistic interaction of anticancer agents: a cellular perspective. Cancer Chemother Rep 1975; 39:895–900.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Webb J. Enzyme and Metabolic Inhibitors. Vol. 1. New York: Academic, 1963, pp 33–79, 488–512.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Dornsife RE, St Clair MH, Huang AT, et al. Anti-human immunodeficiency virus synergism by zidovudine (3′-azidothymidine) and didanosine (dideoxyinosine) contrasts with their additive inhibition of normal human marrow progenitor cells. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1991; 35:322–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Jackson RC. A kinetic model of regulation of the deoxyribonu-cleoside triphosphate pool composition. Pharmacol Ther 1984; 24:279–301.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Johnson JC, Attanasio R. Synergistic inhibition of anatid her-pesvirus replication by acyclovir and phosphonocompounds. Intervirology 1987; 28:89–99.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Mackay D. An analysis of functional antagonism and synergism. Br J Pharmacol 1981; 73:127–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Elion G, Singer S, Hitchings G. Antagonists of nucleic acid derivatives. J Biol Chem 1954; 208:477–88.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Gennings C, Carter WH, Jr., Campbell ED, et al. Isobolographic characterization of drug interactions incorporating biological variability. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 1990; 252:208–17.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Li RC, Schentag JJ, Nix DE. The fractional maximal effect method: a new way to characterize the effect of antibiotic combinations and other nonlinear pharmacodynamic interactions. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1993; 37:523–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Belen'kii MS, Schinazi RF. Multiple drug effect analysis with confidence interval. Antiviral Res 1994; 25:1–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Kong XB, Zhu Q Y, Ruprecht RM, et al. Synergistic inhibition of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 replication in vitro by two-drug and three-drug combinations of 3′-azido-3′-deoxythymidine, phosphonoformate, and 2′,3′-dideoxythymidine. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1991; 35:2003–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Lambert DM, Bartus H, Fernandez AV, et al. Synergistic drug interactions of an HIV-1 protease inhibitor with AZT in different in vitro models of HIV-1 infection. Antiviral Res 1993; 21:327–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Chong K, Pagano P, Hinshaw R. Bisheteroarylpiperazine reverse transcriptase inhibitor in combination with 3′ azido-3′-deoxythymidine or 2′,3′-dideoxycytidine synergistically inhib- its human immunodeficiency virus type 1 replication in vitro. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1993; 38:288–93.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Prichard MN, Prichard LE, Shipman C, Jr. Inhibitors of thymi-dylate synthase and dihydrofolate reductase potentiate the antiviral effect of acyclovir. Antiviral Res 1993; 20:249–59.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Suhnel J. Evaluation of synergism or antagonism for the combined action of antiviral agents. Antiviral Res 1990; 13:23–39.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Carter WH, Jr. Relating isobolograms to response surfaces. Toxicology 1995; 105:181–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Freitas VR, Fraser-Smith EB, Chiu S, Michelson S, Schatzman RC. Efficacy of ganciclovir in combination with zidovudine against cytomegalovirus in vitro and in vivo. Antiviral Res 1993; 21:301–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Machado SG, Robinson GA. A direct, general approach based on isobolograms for assessing the joint action of drugs in pre-clinical experiments. Stat Med 1994; 13:2289–309.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Bauer D. The antiviral and synergistic actions of isatin thiosemi-carbazzone and certain phenoxypyrimidines in vaccinia infection in mice. Br J Exp Pathol 1954; 28:105–14.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Bunow B, Weinstein J. COMBO: a new approach to the analysis of drug combination in vitro. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1990; 616:490–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Prichard MN, Prichard LE, Shipman C, Jr. Strategic design and three-dimensional analysis of antiviral drug combinations. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1993; 37:540–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Buckheit RW, Jr., White EL, Fliakas-Boltz V, et al. Unique anti-human immunodeficiency virus activities of the nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors calanolide A, costatolide, and dihy-drocostatolide. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1999; 43:1827–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Cane PA. Stability of transmitted drug-resistant HIV-1 species. Curr Opin Infect Dis 2005; 18:537–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Tozzi V, Corpolongo A, Bellagamba R, Narciso P. Managing patients with sexual transmission of drug-resistant HIV. Sex Health 2005; 2:135–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Tien D, Schnaare RL, Kang F, et al. In vitro and in vivo characterization of a potential universal placebo designed for use in vaginal microbicide clinical trials. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses 2005; 21:845–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Shattock RJ, Griffin GE, Gorodeski GI. In vitro models of mucosal HIV transmission. Nat Med 2000; 6:607–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Weislow OS, Kiser R, Fine DL, et al. New soluble-formazan assay for HIV-1 cytopathic effects: application to high-flux screening of synthetic and natural products for AIDS-antiviral activity. J Natl Cancer Inst 1989; 81:577–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Shigeta M, Nakamoto T, Nakahara M, Hiromoto N, Usui T. Horseshoe kidney with retrocaval ureter and ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a case report. Int J Urol 1997; 4:206–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Huntley CC, Weiss WJ, Gazumyan A, et al. RFI-641, a potent respiratory syncytial virus inhibitor. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2002; 46:841–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Appleyard G, Maber HB. A plaque assay for the study of influenza virus inhibitors. J Antimicrob Chemother 1975; 1:49–53.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Biron KK, Elion GB. Effect of acyclovir combined with other anti-herpetic agents on varicella zoster virus in vitro. Am J Med 1982; 73:54–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Ouzounov S, Mehta A, Dwek RA, Block TM, Jordan R. The combination of interferon alpha-2b and n-butyl deoxynojirimycin has a greater than additive antiviral effect upon production of infectious bovine viral diarrhea virus (BVDV) in vitro: implications for hepatitis C virus (HCV) therapy. Antiviral Res 2002; 55:425–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Barnard DL, Hubbard VD, Smee DF, et al. In vitro activity of expanded-spectrum pyridazinyl oxime ethers related to pirodavir: novel capsid-binding inhibitors with potent antipicornavirus activity. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2004; 48:1766–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Chiba S, Striker RL, Jr., Benyesh-Melnick M. Microculture plaque assay for human and simian cytomegaloviruses. Appl Microbiol 1972; 23:780–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Sudo K, Konno K, Yokota T, Shigeta S. A sensitive assay system screening antiviral compounds against herpes simplex virus type 1 and type 2. J Virol Methods 1994; 49:169–78.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Mehl JK, Witiak DT, Hamparian VV, Hughes JH. Antiviral activity of antilipidemic compounds on herpes simplex virus type 1. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1980; 18:269–75.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Hosoya M, Shigeta S, Nakamura K, De Clercq E. Inhibitory effect of selected antiviral compounds on measles (SSPE) virus replication in vitro. Antiviral Res 1989; 12:87–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Palese P, Schulman JL, Bodo G, Meindl P. Inhibition of influenza and parainfluenza virus replication in tissue culture by 2-deoxy-2,3-dehydro-N-trifluoroacetylneuraminic acid (FANA). Virology 1974; 59:490–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Markland W, McQuaid TJ, Jain J, Kwong AD. Broad-spectrum antiviral activity of the IMP dehydrogenase inhibitor VX-497: a comparison with ribavirin and demonstration of antiviral additivity with alpha interferon. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2000; 44:859–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Rubin RH, Swartz MN. Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. N Engl J Med 1980; 303:426–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    ATC/CDC/IDSA. Treatment of tuberculosis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2003; 167:603–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Malfertheiner P, Megraud F, O'Morain C, et al. Current concepts in the management of Helicobacter pylori infection — the Maastricht 2 — 2000 Consensus Report. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2002; 16:167–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. Methods for Dilution Antimicrobial Susceptibility Tests for Bacteria that Grow Aerobically. M7-A6. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. Wayne, PA, 2003.Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Eliopoulos G, Moellering R. Antimicrobial combinations. In: Lorian V, ed. Antibiotics in Laboratory Medicine. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins, 1991, p 60.Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Odds FC. Synergy, antagonism, and what the chequerboard puts between them. J Antimicrob Chemother 2003; 52:1.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. Methods for Determining Bactericidal Activity of Antimicrobial Agents. M26-P. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. Wayne, PA, 1987.Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    White RL, Burgess DS, Manduru M, Bosso JA. Comparison of three different in vitro methods of detecting synergy: time-kill, checkerboard, and E test. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1996; 40:1914–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Lau WK, Young LS, Black RE, et al. Comparative efficacy and toxicity of amikacin/carbenicillin versus gentamicin/carbenicillin in leukopenic patients: a randomized prospective trail. Am J Med 1977; 62:959–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    De Jongh CA, Joshi JH, Newman KA, et al. Antibiotic synergism and response in gram-negative bacteremia in granulocytopenic cancer patients. Am J Med 1986; 80:96–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Weinstein AJ, Moellering RC, Jr. Penicillin and gentamicin therapy for enterococcal infections. JAMA 1973; 223:1030–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Mandell LA, Bartlett JG, Dowell SF, et al. Update of practice guidelines for the management of community-acquired pneumonia in immunocompetent adults. Clin Infect Dis 2003; 37:1405–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Muller M, dela Pena A, Derendorf H. Issues in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of anti-infective agents: distribution in tissue. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2004; 48:1441–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Huang V, Rybak MJ. Pharmacodynamics of cefepime alone and in combination with various antimicrobials against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in an in vitro pharmacody-namic infection model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2005; 49:302–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Humana Press, a part of Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert W. Buckheit
    • 1
  • R. Dwayne Lunsford
    • 1
  1. 1.ImQuest BioSciences, Inc.FrederickUSA

Personalised recommendations