The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Pharmacodynamics of a fluoroquinolone antimicrobial agent in a neutropenic rat model of Pseudomonas sepsis
Open accessAbstract
We examined the impact of dose fractionation and altered MICs on survivorship in a neutropenic rat model of Pseudomonas aeruginosa sepsis employing the new fluoroquinolone antibiotic lomefloxacin. Once-daily administration of a drug dose which produced a high peak concentration/MIC (peak/MIC) ratio (ca. 20/1) produced significantly better survivorship compared with regimens employing the same daily dose but on a more fractionated schedule. The use of a smaller dose, producing lower (< 10/1) peak/MIC ratios, did not show this effect, as once-daily and twice-daily regimens produced equivalent results (the area under the concentration-time curve/MIC ratio was linked to survivorship). Challenge with resistant mutants selected for altered MICs of fluoroquinolones (two and four times the MIC for the parent strain, respectively) resulted in markedly diminished survivorship. Challenge with the parent strain and use of a drug dose which produced a peak/MIC ratio identical to that for animals challenged with the mutant for which the MIC was four times that for the parent strain and treated with the larger drug dose produced survivorship curves which were not different. For this animal model, peak/MIC ratio was linked to survivorship, particularly when high ratios (10/1 to 20/1) were obtained. At lower doses, producing peak/MIC ratios < 10/1, the area under the concentration-time curve relative to the MIC appeared to be most closely linked to outcome. The time that levels in plasma exceeded the MIC did not influence survivorship. The hypothesis most likely to explain these findings is that higher peak/MIC ratios can suppress the parent strain and mutant organisms (gyrA and transport mutants) for which the MIC is higher but limited (no more than eight times that for the parent strain).
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Craig, W. A. (1998) · Clinical Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1086/516284 · Cited by 2,908
Antimicrobial pharmacodynamics: critical interactions of 'bug and drug'
Drusano, G. L. (2004) · Nature Reviews Microbiology · doi:10.1038/nrmicro862 · Cited by 930
Self-citationThe pharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamic approach to a rational dosage regimen for antibiotics
Toutain, P. L., del Castillo, J. R. E., & Bousquet-Mélou, A. (2002) · Research in Veterinary Science · doi:10.1016/s0034-5288(02)00039-5 · Cited by 384
Augmented Renal Clearance: Implications for Antibacterial Dosing in the Critically Ill
Udy, A. A., Roberts, J. A., Boots, R. J., Paterson, D. L., & Lipman, J. (2010) · Clinical Pharmacokinetics · doi:10.2165/11318140-000000000-00000 · Cited by 377
Pharmacodynamics of Daptomycin in a Murine Thigh Model of Staphylococcus aureus Infection
Louie, A., Kaw, P., Liu, W., Jumbe, N., Miller, M. H., & Drusano, G. L. (2001) · Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy · doi:10.1128/aac.45.3.845-851.2001 · Cited by 172
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Drusano, G. L., Johnson, D. E., Rosen, M., & Standiford, H. C.
- Venue
- Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
- Publisher
- American Society for Microbiology
- Published
- 1993-03
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 483-490
- ISSN
- 0066-4804 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-6596
- OpenAlex
- W2067130929
- Cited by
- 426
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 8.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Pharmacodynamics of a fluoroquinolone antimicrobial agent in a neutropenic rat model of Pseudomonas sepsis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/aac.37.3.483
- The paper
- Drusano, G. L., Johnson, D. E., Rosen, M., & Standiford, H. C. (1993). Pharmacodynamics of a fluoroquinolone antimicrobial agent in a neutropenic rat model of Pseudomonas sepsis. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. https://doi.org/10.1128/aac.37.3.483
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.