MINIREVIEW

crossm

Avibactam Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Targets

Wright W. Nichols,a Paul Newell,b* Ian A. Critchley,c* Todd Riccobene,d Shampa Dasb*

a AstraZeneca, Waltham, Massachusetts, USA

b AstraZeneca, Alderley Park, Macclesfield, United Kingdom
c
Allergan plc, Irvine, California, USA

Downloaded from http://aac.asm.org/ on May 18, 2019 by guest

d Allergan plc, Madison, New Jersey, USA

ABSTRACT Avibactam is a novel non-␤-lactam ␤-lactamase inhibitor that has been

approved in the United States and Europe for use in combination with ceftazidime.
Combinations of avibactam with aztreonam or ceftaroline fosamil have also been
clinically evaluated. Until recently, there has been very little precedence of which
pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) indices and magnitudes are appropriate
to use for ␤-lactamase inhibitors in population PK modeling for analyzing potential
doses and susceptibility breakpoints. For avibactam, several preclinical studies using
different in vitro and in vivo models have been conducted to identify the PK/PD in-
dex of avibactam and the magnitude of exposure necessary for effect in combina-
tion with ceftazidime, aztreonam, or ceftaroline fosamil. The PD driver of avibactam
critical for restoring the activity of all three partner ␤-lactams was found to be time
dependent rather than concentration dependent and was defined as the time that
the concentration of avibactam exceeded a critical concentration threshold (%f T⬎CT).
The magnitude of the CT and the time that this threshold needed to be exceeded to
elicit particular PD endpoints varied depending on the model and the partner
␤-lactam. This review describes the preclinical studies used to determine the avibac-
tam PK/PD target in combination with its ␤-lactam partners.

KEYWORDS avibactam, diazabicyclooctane, BL-BLI, PK/PD

S electing the dose of a candidate antibiotic for evaluation in clinical trials requires
the translation of pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) data derived from in
vitro and in vivo experimental models to the prediction of clinical responses in patients
(1–3). Data from preclinical studies are typically used to identify the PK/PD index that
best describes the relationship between exposure and the antimicrobial effect for the
antibiotic in question. The magnitude of this PK/PD index which produces the desired
effect is termed the PK/PD target. Due to interindividual variation in human PKs, a
population-based modeling approach is necessary to predict whether potential dosing Accepted manuscript posted online 2 April
regimens will result in the achievement of the PK/PD target in a substantial majority of 2018
patients (4, 5). Population PK models developed from patient PK data are used to Citation Nichols WW, Newell P, Critchley IA,
Riccobene T, Das S. 2018. Avibactam
simulate antibiotic exposures in a representative patient population and to predict the
pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic targets.
proportion of patients who would achieve a level of drug exposure that meets the Antimicrob Agents Chemother 62:e02446-17.
prespecified PK/PD target, known as the “probability of target attainment” (PTA). Such https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.02446-17.
analyses can thus guide the selection of a dosage regimen that is likely to result in a Copyright © 2018 American Society for
Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.
high PTA (⬎90%). Neglecting key considerations of these principles can lead to failures
Address correspondence to Wright W. Nichols,
of clinical trials due to inadequate drug exposures needed to be effective against key wrightnichols1@gmail.com.
target pathogens (6). This exposes patients to unnecessary risks and delays or prevents * Present address: Paul Newell, F2G Ltd.,
the availability of a drug that may address an unmet need. Thus, appropriately charac- Manchester, United Kingdom; Ian A. Critchley,
Spero Therapeutics, Cambridge, Massachusetts,
terizing the PK/PD index and magnitude preclinically is a key step in dose selection.
USA; Shampa Das, University of Liverpool,
Avibactam is a novel diazabicyclooctane non-␤-lactam ␤-lactamase inhibitor which Liverpool, United Kingdom.
is active against Ambler class A, class C, and some class D ␤-lactamases (7). When

June 2018 Volume 62 Issue 6 e02446-17 Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy aac.asm.org 1
Minireview Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy

combined with ceftazidime, an antipseudomonal cephalosporin, avibactam restores

the activity of ceftazidime against most multidrug-resistant Enterobacteriaceae and
Pseudomonas aeruginosa, including those producing extended-spectrum ␤-lactamases
(ESBLs) and non-metallo-␤-lactamase (non-MBL) carbapenemases (8–10). Ceftazidime-
avibactam is approved in the United States for the treatment of adults with compli-
cated intra-abdominal infections (cIAI), complicated urinary tract infections (cUTI),
hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia, and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia
and in Europe for the treatment of adults with cIAI, cUTI, and hospital-acquired
pneumonia (including ventilator-associated pneumonia) and patients with aerobic
Gram-negative infections and limited treatment options (11, 12).
Avibactam has also been evaluated in combination with the ␤-lactams aztreonam
and ceftaroline fosamil. Aztreonam is a monocyclic ␤-lactam (monobactam) that is
stable in the presence of MBLs, but is hydrolyzed by ESBLs. In combination with

Downloaded from http://aac.asm.org/ on May 18, 2019 by guest

avibactam, aztreonam is active in vitro and in vivo against Enterobacteriaceae that
harbor an MBL with or without one or more class A or C or some class D serine
␤-lactamases (13–15). Ceftaroline fosamil, the prodrug of the active component cef-
taroline, is a broad-spectrum cephalosporin with in vitro activity against Gram-positive
bacteria and some non-ESBL-producing Gram-negative species; when combined with
avibactam, ceftaroline has shown in vitro activity against Enterobacteriaceae producing
various ESBLs (16). A phase 2 trial of aztreonam-avibactam in patients with cIAI is
currently ongoing (NCT02655419); ceftaroline fosamil-avibactam has been evaluated in
a phase 2 clinical trial in patients with cUTI (NCT01281462) (17, 18).
For ␤-lactam–␤-lactamase inhibitor combinations, it is important to establish a
PK/PD index for both components, i.e., the ␤-lactamase inhibitor as well as the ␤-lactam
antibiotic (19). Until recently, there has been very little precedence for the PK/PD
indices and magnitudes that are appropriate to use for ␤-lactamase inhibitors in
population PK modeling for analyzing potential doses and susceptibility breakpoints for
␤-lactam–␤-lactamase inhibitor combinations. A thorough characterization of the PD of
␤-lactamase inhibitors in combination with their partner antibiotics enables an opti-
mization of the dosing regimen. This review describes the preclinical studies used to
identify the PK/PD index of avibactam and the magnitudes of exposure necessary for
effect in combination with the different ␤-lactams, ceftazidime, aztreonam, and cef-
taroline fosamil.

PK/PD TARGETS IN ANTIBIOTIC DRUG DEVELOPMENT AND THE PRINCIPLE OF

ESTABLISHING A PK/PD INDEX FOR A ␤-LACTAMASE INHIBITOR
Although PK/PD indices and magnitudes for antibiotics could theoretically be
identified from clinical trials, it is not ethical to give doses which are so low that a
proportion of patients are likely to fail therapy. If the agent is effective and the dose
regimen is well designed, there are likely to be few exposure-related failures. In
addition, patients with infections due to multidrug-resistant pathogens are often
critically ill, and clinical outcomes may be confounded by underlying diseases and/or
surgical interventions. Consequently, exposure-effect analyses from clinical trial data do
not usually enable discriminatory PK/PD indices and magnitudes to be identified (6, 19).
Exposure targets must therefore be derived, initially, from nonhuman experiments that
measure antibacterial activity in terms of bacterial killing or from outcome measures
such as morbidity or mortality in animal infection models. Fortunately, in the analysis
of PK/PD targets of antibacterial agents, substantial understanding can be achieved
from preclinical in vitro and in vivo laboratory studies and subsequent modeling (6, 20,
21). Antibacterial drug exposures that result in bacteriostasis or 10- to 100-fold bacterial
killing in experimental models are broadly correlated with clinical efficacy (6, 22, 23).
The analysis of PK/PD targets for antibacterial agents differs in a key aspect from that
for drugs directed at mammalian biology, in that the target is the infecting pathogen.
The PK/PD target established preclinically in either in vitro or in vivo systems is therefore
relevant in humans, although penetration into the infection site may need to be taken
into consideration. The exposure (PK) component of the PK/PD relationships for

June 2018 Volume 62 Issue 6 e02446-17 aac.asm.org 2

Minireview Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy

antibacterial agents is generally related to one of the following parameters, based on

plasma concentrations of the unbound drug: Cmax (the maximum plasma concentration
of the drug during the dosing interval), AUC (the area under the plasma concentration-
time curve, mostly considered over 24 h [AUC0 –24]), or T⬎Ccrit (time above a critical
concentration of the drug as a proportion of the regular dosing interval [interdose
period]). In addition, the variability in the susceptibility of target pathogens to the
antibiotic also needs to be considered in the PK/PD target for dose finding (24, 25). For
antibacterial agents, the respective PK/PD indices have been established as the ratios
fCmax/MIC, fAUC/MIC, or f T⬎MIC, where the f symbol indicates that the concentration
is that of “free” (unbound) drug (26, 27). The critical MIC used in setting PK/PD targets
should be based on analyses of MIC distributions observed in global surveillance
studies of contemporary isolates of key pathogens from the intended indications.
Certain classes of antibiotics tend to share PK/PD indices. In concordance with those

Downloaded from http://aac.asm.org/ on May 18, 2019 by guest

for other ␤-lactam antibiotics, the PK/PD indices for ceftazidime, ceftaroline fosamil,
and aztreonam are well established as f T⬎MIC. The initial hypothesis of the PD of
avibactam in combination with ␤-lactams was based on the theoretical concept that if
the avibactam exposure is effective, then the PD of the combination should be the
same as that of the partner ␤-lactam (28), i.e., related to f T⬎MIC of the combination.
Avibactam alone does not have significant antibacterial activity and thus does not
change the PD of the ␤-lactam partner. For avibactam, different experimental ap-
proaches have been used to characterize the PD index of exposure best related to
restoring the activity of the partner ␤-lactam under dynamic conditions, including in in
vitro hollow-fiber models and in vivo mouse thigh and lung infection models, as
described in the following sections.

AVIBACTAM PK/PD TARGETS IN COMBINATION WITH CEFTAZIDIME

Ceftazidime PK/PD target. The achievement of 50% f T⬎MIC for ceftazidime has
been shown to be associated with the killing of Enterobacteriaceae and P. aeruginosa by
ceftazidime in neutropenic mouse infection models (29–31) and with microbiological
eradication in patients with Gram-negative infections (23, 32). These PK/PD correlates
led to the use of 50% f T⬎MIC as the pivotal exposure for associating particular
ceftazidime doses with PK/PD target attainment and in establishing interpretive MIC
criteria (25, 33–35). A ceftazidime-avibactam MIC value of 8 mg/liter was chosen for the
PK/PD target because global surveillance data had reported ceftazidime-avibactam
MIC90 values of 0.5 to 1 mg/liter and ⱕ8 mg/liter for phenotypically and genotypically
unselected clinical isolates of Enterobacteriaceae and P. aeruginosa, respectively (36–42).
Determination of the avibactam PK/PD target when combined with ceftazi-
dime against Enterobacteriaceae. Taking the concept that with complete ␤-lactamase
inhibition, the PK/PD profile of ceftazidime-avibactam would revert to the PK/PD profile
of ceftazidime, it was important to identify the concentration of avibactam that must
be maintained to achieve sufficient ␤-lactamase inhibition to protect the activity of
ceftazidime. Thus, a “critical” or “threshold” concentration of avibactam (CT) was
defined as that which occurs during the exponential decline of the concentration of
avibactam during a dose cycle, below which the inhibition of ␤-lactamases is inade-
quate to prevent growth (of ceftazidime-resistant bacteria) in the presence of ceftazi-
dime.
A series of hollow-fiber model experiments were used to analyze the PK/PD activity
of avibactam in restoring the bactericidal activity of ceftazidime against ceftazidime-
resistant Enterobacteriaceae and thus determine the CT of avibactam in this setting (43).
In the first set of experiments, avibactam concentrations were varied to simulate human
PK profiles, while ceftazidime was held constant at a concentration higher than that of
the MIC of ceftazidime-avibactam in combination but lower than that of the MIC of
ceftazidime alone for all strains tested. The three ceftazidime-resistant Enterobacteria-
ceae isolates used in these experiments produced either derepressed AmpC (Entero-
bacter cloacae) or one of two ESBLs, SHV-5 or CTX-M-15 (Klebsiella pneumoniae). The
avibactam concentration below which adequate inhibition of ␤-lactamases was lost

June 2018 Volume 62 Issue 6 e02446-17 aac.asm.org 3

Minireview Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy

Downloaded from http://aac.asm.org/ on May 18, 2019 by guest

FIG 1 Responses of ceftazidime-resistant E. cloacae to continuous infusion of ceftazidime combined with
two different concentration-time profiles of avibactam in the hollow-fiber model. Results are shown for
isolate E. cloacae 293HT96 (stably derepressed AmpC; MIC ceftazidime, ⬎128 mg/liter; MIC ceftazidime-
avibactam, 4 mg/liter [with avibactam fixed at 4 mg/liter {59}]). {, untreated growth control; ▫,
continuous infusion of ceftazidime (8.2 mg/liter) and avibactam (1.6 mg/liter); Œ, continuous infusion of
ceftazidime (8.2 mg/liter) with a single-dose profile of avibactam (Cmax, 31 mg/liter at 0.5 h). The dotted
line represents 99.9% bacterial killing. For the single-dose profile of avibactam, growth recommenced
after the 12-h time point when the concentration of avibactam on the exponentially declining
concentration-time curve was 0.15 mg/liter, resulting in an estimated critical concentration threshold (CT)
of ⱕ0.15 mg/liter. Adapted and republished from reference 43.

was identified as that at which bacterial numbers started to increase again. The
magnitude of the CT was estimated as being equal to or less than the concentration of
avibactam remaining in the hollow-fiber system at the time point at which growth
suppression was last experimentally demonstrated.
Figure 1 shows how CT was estimated in these hollow-fiber experiments, using the
E. cloacae isolate as an example. Four estimates of the CT of avibactam were obtained
with the three isolates, with a mean value of ⱕ0.21 mg/liter (range, ⱕ0.15 to ⱕ0.28
mg/liter). Several further observations about the CT of avibactam were noteworthy from
these experiments. The four values of CT were similar, with similar CT values obtained
for two species: ⱕ0.15 and ⱕ0.2 mg/liter for E. cloacae and ⱕ0.22 and ⱕ0.28 mg/liter
for K. pneumoniae. There was no direct correlation between the MIC of ceftazidime-
avibactam (which spanned a 4-fold range of MICs studied [1 to 4 mg/liter] among the
three isolates) and the CT for each isolate and no obvious dependence on the specific
␤-lactamase encountered. Within these experiments, while the avibactam AUC0 –24
ranged between 16.4 and 126 mg · h/liter, there was no relationship between growth
suppression and the AUC (43).
In a second set of hollow-fiber experiments, the “growth suppression windows”
yielded by constant concentrations of avibactam infused for different periods of time
were determined using a broader panel of isolates (including K. pneumoniae carbap-
enemase [KPC]-3-producing K. pneumoniae and stably derepressed AmpC-producing
Citrobacter freundii). In these experiments, constant concentrations of avibactam rang-
ing from 0.25 to 1.0 mg/liter were infused for different time periods in the background
of ceftazidime concentrations varied to simulate human PK profiles. This enabled a CT
of avibactam to be determined on the basis of a period of infusion of a constant
concentration of the compound rather than following a peak of avibactam as described
in the previous set of experiments. This was termed CTQ8 to indicate that it was
determined in a background of 8 hourly (q8h) cycling of ceftazidime concentrations.
The CTQ8 yielded in the background of ceftazidime exposures equivalent to a dose of
2 g q8h was ⱕ0.5 mg/liter. When comparing this value of CTQ8 to the CT to be used in
setting a PK/PD target, it should be regarded a relatively conservative magnitude. This
is because the avibactam concentration was constant and did not account for the
pharmacologic effect of the higher avibactam concentrations yielded in vivo at early
time points after dosing.

June 2018 Volume 62 Issue 6 e02446-17 aac.asm.org 4

Minireview Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy

TABLE 1 Assessment of the hypothesis that f T⬎CT is the exposure variable more closely linked than fAUC to the pharmacodynamic
effect of avibactam in combination with ceftazidime against ceftazidime-resistant P. aeruginosa in the neutropenic mouse lung infection
model, using bacterial stasis as the pharmacodynamic endpointa
AVIc
Static total daily dose %f T>CT of 1 mg/liter
MIC (mg/liter) (mg · kgⴚ1 · dayⴚ1) associated with stasisd
Strainb CAZe CAZ-AVI q2h q8h q2h q8h
11 128 16 45.6 463 19.7 20.9
18 32 2 56.4 151 23.5 16.1
aConstructed from the data of Berkhout et al. (44).
bResistance summaries for the strains used in this experiment are as follows. Strain 11: OprD⫺, AmpCcon, class A⫺, class B⫺; strain 18: OprD⫺, AmpCind?, class A⫺, class
B⫺.
cAVI, avibactam.
dStasis-associated exposure times as percentages of the dosing interval calculated to be yielded by the interpolated doses shown.

Downloaded from http://aac.asm.org/ on May 18, 2019 by guest

eCAZ, ceftazidime.

Taking together the results from these hollow-fiber experiments, a minimum avibac-
tam CT of 0.5 mg/liter was considered appropriate for estimating the PTA for
ceftazidime-avibactam against Enterobacteriaceae (43). As there was no relationship
between the CT and MIC and no dependence on the different ␤-lactamases expressed,
it can be considered that this CT of 0.5 mg/liter was sufficient to fully inhibit the
␤-lactamases in each of the isolates.
Determination of the avibactam PK/PD target when combined with ceftazi-
dime against P. aeruginosa. A series of dose fractionation studies in neutropenic
mouse thigh and lung infection models was used to define the PK/PD index of
avibactam in combination with ceftazidime against ceftazidime-resistant P. aeruginosa
isolates (44). In these experiments, dose fractionation was used to determine which PD
index best described the PD of avibactam in combination with ceftazidime. The isolates
used in these studies were tested with ceftazidime-avibactam MICs ranging from 2 to
16 mg/liter and produced AmpC ␤-lactamase (Tables 1, 2, and 3). Before the dose
fractionation experiments were undertaken, it was necessary to establish a dose of

TABLE 2 Magnitudes of avibactam exposures associated with stasis and killing of P.

aeruginosa in the neutropenic mouse thigh infection model in the background of q2h
dosing of ceftazidimea
Avibactam %f T>1 mg/
MIC (mg/liter) literc yielding:
Strainb CAZd CAZ-AVIe Exptf Stasis 1-log10 kill
1 128 8 Codosing 37.2 65.7
5 128 8 Codosing 14.1 32.9
7 64 4 AVI fractionation 74.1 Not reported
Codosing 50.4 65.3
11 128 16 Codosing 29.1 37.5
18 32 2 AVI fractionation 30.2 Not reported
Codosing 24.2 33.2
19 64 4 Codosing 62.5 67.2
Mean 40.2 50.3
SD 20 17
aData were retabulated from Berkhout et al. (44).
bResistance summaries for the strains used in this experiment are as follows. Strain 1, nitrocefinase activity,
⫹⫹; AmpC transcript, overexpressed; ␤-lactamase genotype, blaAmpC; class A⫺, class B⫺; strain 5:
nitrocefinase activity, ⫹⫹⫹⫹; AmpC transcript, overexpressed; ␤-lactamase genotype, blaAmpC; class A⫺,
class B⫺; strain 7: nitrocefinase activity, ⫹⫹⫹; AmpC transcript, overexpressed; ␤-lactamase genotype,
blaAmpC; class A⫺, class B⫺; strain 11: OprD⫺, AmpCcon, class A⫺, class B⫺; strain 18: OprD⫺, AmpCind?, class
A⫺, class B⫺; strain 19: OprD⫺, AmpCcon, class A⫺, class B⫺.
cTimes are expressed as the percentages of the dosing interval.

dCAZ, ceftazidime.

eAVI, avibactam.

fCodosing, ceftazidime and avibactam were codosed but the amount of avibactam was varied, without

fractionating any given total daily dose; AVI fractionation, avibactam dose fractionation experiments.

June 2018 Volume 62 Issue 6 e02446-17 aac.asm.org 5

Minireview Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy

TABLE 3 Magnitudes of avibactam exposures associated with stasis and bacterial killing
of ceftazidime-resistant P. aeruginosa in the neutropenic mouse lung infection model in
the background of q2h dosing of ceftazidimea
Avibactam %f T>1 mg/literf associated
MIC (mg/liter) with:
Codosing
Strainb CAZc CAZ-AVId expte Stasis 1-log10 kill 2-log10 kill
5 128 8 q2h 19.4 20.6 Not reported
7 64 4 q2h 21.4 22.4 Not reported
11 128 16 q2h 19.7 34.9 55.3
q8h 20.9 21.6 22.5
18 32 2 q2h 23.5 26.7 31.8
q8h 16.1 17.8 20.2
Mean 20.2 24.0 32.4
SD 2.5 6.1 16

Downloaded from http://aac.asm.org/ on May 18, 2019 by guest

aData are from Berkhout et al. (44).
bResistance summaries for the strains used in this experiment are as follows. Strain 5: nitrocefinase activity,
⫹⫹⫹⫹; AmpC transcript, overexpressed; ␤-lactamase genotype, blaAmpC; class A⫺, class B⫺; strain 7:
nitrocefinase activity, ⫹⫹⫹; AmpC transcript, overexpressed; ␤-lactamase genotype, blaAmpC; class A⫺, class
B⫺; strain 11: OprD⫺, AmpCcon, class A⫺, class B⫺; strain 18: OprD⫺, AmpCind?, class A⫺, class B⫺; strain 19:
OprD⫺, AmpCcon, class A⫺, class B⫺.
cCAZ, ceftazidime.

dAVI, avibactam.

eq2h, ceftazidime and avibactam were dosed together at every administration; q8h, ceftazidime was dosed

q2h but avibactam was codosed at 0, 8, and 16 h from the initiation of dosing.
fTimes are expressed as percentages of the dosing interval.

ceftazidime monotherapy against each bacterial strain that would just allow maximal
growth in the neutropenic mouse model. The concept was to establish the ceftazidime
dose response of the system at a point whereby any reduction in bacterial growth was
the result of ␤-lactamase inhibition by avibactam, restoring the activity of ceftazidime
against the resistant strain. This approach enabled the determination of dose-response
curves for avibactam when it was administered in the presence of ceftazidime dosed
every 2 h (q2h) at the amount determined empirically for that strain, as described
above.
The doses of avibactam were fractionated in the background of this specific q2h
dosing schedule of ceftazidime, with responses measured as log10 change in CFU (44).
The responses were plotted as a function of the PD indices fAUC, fCmax, and f T⬎CT for
avibactam to determine which of these best correlated with antibacterial efficacy for
ceftazidime-avibactam. For f T⬎CT, the responses were plotted against three values of
CT, covering a 16-fold range: 0.25 mg/liter, 1 mg/liter, and 4 mg/liter. An example dose
fractionation experiment for one of the P. aeruginosa strains is shown in Fig. 2. There
was no significant relationship between the response to ceftazidime-avibactam and the
avibactam Cmax, suggesting that Cmax was not the driver of efficacy. However, both
%f T⬎CT and AUC values of avibactam showed reasonable correlations with efficacy.
A subsequent experiment in the lung infection model tested the hypothesis that
%f T⬎CT was a more predictive avibactam index than AUC (44). Identical daily doses of
avibactam were given either q2h or q8h in the background of the q2h dosing schedule
of ceftazidime described above. The two widely different dose intervals were selected
to gather more data points and increase the ability to distinguish between AUC and
time as PK/PD indices. The avibactam static total daily doses and %f T⬎CT values
required for stasis in two isolates of P. aeruginosa are summarized in Table 1. The total
daily dose of avibactam that resulted in a static effect was lower for the more frequent
q2h dosing of avibactam than for q8h dosing in both strains of ceftazidime-resistant P.
aeruginosa (by factors of 10.1 and 2.7) (Table 1) (44). Despite this difference in total daily
dose, the values of %f T⬎CT of 1 mg/liter that yielded stasis from the two avibactam
dosing frequencies were similar (16.1 and 23.5%) (Table 1). These results were consis-
tent with the hypothesis that the PD of avibactam in restoring the antibacterial activity
of ceftazidime in ceftazidime-resistant P. aeruginosa was time dependent rather than
concentration dependent (i.e., linked to f T⬎concentration [CT] rather than fAUC).

June 2018 Volume 62 Issue 6 e02446-17 aac.asm.org 6

Minireview Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy

Downloaded from http://aac.asm.org/ on May 18, 2019 by guest

FIG 2 Dose fractionation study of avibactam in combination with ceftazidime against a ceftazidime-resistant P. aeruginosa
strain in the neutropenic mouse thigh infection model. AVI, avibactam; CAZ, ceftazidime; ΔlogCFU, change in log10 CFU
compared to the initial inoculum. Republished from reference 44.

Results from similar experiments in the thigh infection model showed a significant
relationship between an increased frequency of dosing and a change in log10 CFU for
similar avibactam total daily doses, confirming the importance of %f T⬎CT in the PD of
avibactam (44). A CT of 1 mg/liter was chosen as the reference concentration, because
in the dose fractionation study, higher r2 coefficients were found for the association
between the PD effect of avibactam (change in log CFU) and %f T⬎CT 1 mg/liter than
for %f T⬎CT 0.25 mg/liter and %f T⬎CT 4 mg/liter (r2 0.67 versus 0.61 and 0.61,
respectively).
Having chosen the reference concentration of avibactam, further ceftazidime-
avibactam codosing experiments were conducted with four P. aeruginosa strains in the
lung model and six strains in the thigh model to determine the relationship between
the magnitude of %f T⬎CT 1 mg/liter and the magnitude of the PD effect. The %f T⬎CT
1 mg/liter values that yielded PD effects of net stasis and a 1-log10 kill in the
neutropenic mouse thigh infection model for the different P. aeruginosa strains are
shown in Table 2, while those derived from the lung model, including the %f T⬎CT 1
mg/liter that yielded a 2-log10 kill, are shown in Table 3. The mean exposure that
yielded 1-log10 killing of P. aeruginosa in the neutropenic mouse thigh model (50.3%)
was equivalent to the avibactam exposure target of approximately 50% f T⬎CT of 1
mg/liter. Moreover, this target exceeded the avibactam exposure of 40% f T⬎CT of 1
mg/liter that was associated with bacterial stasis (Table 2). In addition, the avibactam
target of 50% f T⬎CT of 1 mg/liter exceeded the exposures associated with stasis,
1-log10 kill, and 2-log10 kill of P. aeruginosa in the neutropenic mouse lung infection
model (Table 3). Again, in these sets of experiments where the ceftazidime-avibactam
MIC ranged from 2 to 16 mg/liter, there was no noticeable correlation between the
avibactam CT and MIC or the level of ␤-lactamase expressed.
On the basis of these experiments, %f T⬎CT was determined as the PK/PD index that
was best associated with the restoration of ceftazidime efficacy by avibactam in the
neutropenic mice thigh and lung infection models. The most appropriate CT value of
avibactam associated with efficacy against ceftazidime-resistant P. aeruginosa was 1
mg/liter.

June 2018 Volume 62 Issue 6 e02446-17 aac.asm.org 7

Minireview Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy

Ceftazidime-avibactam PK/PD targets used to support dosage selection. Joint

PTA analyses based on the simultaneous achievement of both the ceftazidime and
avibactam PK/PD targets in ⱖ90% of patients have subsequently been used to support
ceftazidime-avibactam dosage selection (45). The ceftazidime-avibactam dose was
designed to provide adequate target attainment in ⱖ90% of patients in whom the
infecting organism would respond in a susceptibility test with a ceftazidime-avibactam
MIC of 8 mg/liter. The ceftazidime-avibactam MIC value of 8 mg/liter was chosen as the
cutoff for assessing PTA on the basis of reported ceftazidime-avibactam MIC90 values
from global surveillance data for Enterobacteriaceae and P. aeruginosa, as described
above (36–42). Therefore, we propose that the approach to dosage selection based on
ⱖ90% of patients attaining ceftazidime exposures adequate to treat infecting bacteria
against which the ceftazidime-avibactam MIC would be 8 mg/liter is conservative,
because the PTA is based on the 90th percentile MIC of the MIC frequency distribution

Downloaded from http://aac.asm.org/ on May 18, 2019 by guest

of clinical isolates as opposed to the whole distribution. That is, in patients infected by
most examples of Enterobacteriaceae or P. aeruginosa and dosed with ceftazidime-
avibactam, the ceftazidime PK/PD target is predicted to be well exceeded.
The avibactam exposure target of f T⬎CT of 1 mg/liter for at least 50% of the dosing
interval was chosen for determining the PTA for avibactam in combination with
ceftazidime. This also matched the exposure target for ceftazidime (50% f T ⬎
ceftazidime-avibactam MIC of 8 mg/liter) (45–48). The CT of 1 mg/liter value was
regarded as an adequate index for analyses of PK/PD target attainment against P.
aeruginosa on the basis of the neutropenic mouse thigh and lung infection studies and
as a conservative index for analyses of PK/PD target attainment against Enterobacteri-
aceae, as CT and CTQ8 were estimated to be ⱕ0.5 mg/liter in the in vitro hollow-fiber
studies by Coleman and colleagues (43). The experiments included a range of different
isolates with differing ␤-lactamase expressions and a clinically relevant ceftazidime-
avibactam MIC range. In both the in vitro and in vivo sets of experiments, there was no
relationship between CT and either MIC or the identity of the ␤-lactamases tested,
demonstrating that the CT of 1 mg/liter sufficiently inhibits all ␤-lactamase expression
in the isolates tested. Thus, the avibactam PK/PD target of CT of 1 mg/liter was
considered appropriate to use together with the ceftazidime PK/PD target in joint PTA
analyses for ceftazidime-avibactam dosage selection.

AVIBACTAM PK/PD INDEX AND TARGET IN COMBINATION WITH AZTREONAM

Singh and colleagues (49) used an in vitro hollow-fiber model and a neutropenic
mouse infection model to investigate the PK/PD indices and magnitudes for aztreonam
and avibactam in combination against Enterobacteriaceae (49). Six aztreonam-resistant
Enterobacteriaceae isolates (three K. pneumoniae and three Escherichia coli) all copro-
ducing an MBL and an ESBL and/or a class C ␤-lactamase (CMY type) were used in these
experiments. The MIC values of aztreonam-avibactam against these isolates ranged
from 0.125 to 8 mg/liter. Two sets of hollow-fiber experiments were performed; the first
evaluated the PK/PD index of aztreonam in the presence of avibactam and the second
evaluated the PK/PD index and magnitude of avibactam in the presence of a fixed dose
of aztreonam. The avibactam PK/PD target derived from the hollow-fiber experiments
was then validated in a neutropenic mouse thigh infection model.
The first set of hollow-fiber experiments was designed to evaluate whether the
aztreonam PK/PD index changed with the addition of avibactam (49). In these exper-
iments, avibactam at 4 mg/liter was continuously infused in combination with different
dosage regimens of aztreonam, and the responses of two of the Enterobacteriaceae
isolates were measured. As was inferred for ceftazidime, the PK/PD index that best
correlated with the efficacy of aztreonam in combination with avibactam was %f T⬎MIC
of the combination. The magnitude of the index associated with a 1-log10 kill over 24
h was 50 to 55%. These initial experiments demonstrated that the aztreonam PK/PD
index was not changed by the presence of avibactam and that the magnitudes
associated with activity against aztreonam-resistant bacteria in the presence of avibac-
tam were as expected for a ␤-lactam against susceptible bacteria.

June 2018 Volume 62 Issue 6 e02446-17 aac.asm.org 8

Minireview Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy

Downloaded from http://aac.asm.org/ on May 18, 2019 by guest

FIG 3 PK/PD relationship between fAUC, fCmax, and %f T⬎CT for avibactam in the presence of fixed dosing of aztreonam
against an E. coli strain in the hollow-fiber model. Symbols represent experimental observations for different dosage regimens
of avibactam and continuous lines represent the predicted best-fit model. Republished from reference 49 with permission from
the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy.

In the second set of hollow-fiber studies, a fixed dose of aztreonam was adminis-
tered every 6 h to simulate a human-like PK profile in the presence of different dosage
regimens of avibactam (49). As the previous experiments had shown that 50% f T⬎MIC
was sufficient for aztreonam efficacy in the presence of avibactam against Enterobac-
teriaceae, the fixed aztreonam dose was therefore designed to provide 50 to 100%
f T⬎MIC against the isolate under study. An example dose fractionation experiment of
avibactam in combination with aztreonam against one of the E. coli strains is shown in
Fig. 3. From these dose fractionation experiments, the effect of avibactam in restoring
the antibacterial activity of aztreonam was found to correlate best with %f T⬎CT. The
PK/PD indices fAUC and fCmax were also analyzed but did not correlate well with
response. The magnitude of CT that best correlated with efficacy was evaluated for CT
values ranging from 0.5 to 4 mg/liter. For five of the six isolates, a CT of 2.5 mg/liter
provided the best fit; for these isolates (two K. pneumoniae and three E. coli), the mean
value of %f T⬎CT of 2.5 mg/liter that yielded a 1-log10 kill was 47.5% (range, 40.9 to
58.2%) (Table 4). In the other K. pneumoniae isolate, a CT of 2 mg/liter provided a better
correlation, with a value of 38% f T⬎CT yielding a 1-log10 kill. As the efficacy best
correlated with a CT of 2.5 mg/liter in five of the six isolates tested, this threshold value
was chosen for use in PTA analyses for dosage selection. As with the ceftazidime-
avibactam experiments described above, there was no relationship between the CT and
aztreonam-avibactam MIC or ␤-lactamase expression.
The bacterial responses associated with these avibactam exposure magnitudes were
confirmed in further dose fractionation experiments in the neutropenic mouse thigh

June 2018 Volume 62 Issue 6 e02446-17 aac.asm.org 9

Minireview Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy

TABLE 4 Magnitudes of avibactam exposures associated with stasis and killing of metallo-
␤-lactamase- and ESBL- and/or CMY-type ␤-lactamase-coproducing isolates of K.
pneumoniae and E. coli in the background of 6-hourly dosing of aztreonam over 24 h in a
hollow-fiber model in vitroa
Avibactam %f T>2.5 mg/literc yielding:
Strain b Stasis 1-log10 kill
K. pneumoniae ARC3602 39.3 46.1
K. pneumoniae ARC3803 41.8 44.3
E. coli ARC3600 36.1 40.9
E. coli ARC3805 56.4 58.2
E. coli ARC3807 43.2 48.1
Mean 43.4 47.5
SD 7.8 6.5
aData were retabulated from Singh et al. (49) with permission from the British Society for Antimicrobial
Chemotherapy. ESBL, extended-spectrum ␤-lactamase.

Downloaded from http://aac.asm.org/ on May 18, 2019 by guest

bK. pneumoniae ARC3802 omitted because only bacterial responses correlating with an f T⬎2 mg/liter were

reported for that isolate.

cTimes are expressed as percentages of the 24-h period of the experiment.

(49) and lung (our unpublished data) infection models. In the thigh infection model,
four-hourly codosing of aztreonam and avibactam (4:1 by weight) provided aztreonam
70 to 100% f T⬎MIC of the combination. With the aztreonam exposures set to ⬎50%
f T⬎MIC, the efficacy of aztreonam-avibactam correlated with avibactam %f T⬎CT of 2
to 2.5 mg/liter. Twenty-four-hour stasis was achieved against an E. coli isolate at 23%
f T⬎CT 2.5 mg/liter and against a K. pneumoniae isolate at 25% f T⬎CT 2 mg/liter. The
maximal effect of avibactam was achieved at 35 to 40% f T⬎CT 2 to 2.5 mg/liter for both
isolates, which was consistent with the results observed in the hollow-fiber model
experiments.
These studies showed that, as had been found for ceftazidime, the PK/PD index that
best correlated with the restoration of the antibacterial activity of aztreonam by
avibactam was %f T⬎CT. In both the hollow-fiber and neutropenic mouse infection
models, a CT value of 2.5 mg/liter for avibactam correlated best with the restoration of
aztreonam efficacy against aztreonam-resistant Enterobacteriaceae. On the basis of
these results, PK/PD targets of aztreonam 60% f T⬎MIC for aztreonam-avibactam and
avibactam 50% f T⬎CT of 2.5 mg/liter were considered appropriate for PTA analyses to
guide dosage selection for aztreonam-avibactam (our unpublished data).

PK/PD STUDIES OF AVIBACTAM IN COMBINATION WITH CEFTAROLINE IN AN IN

VITRO HOLLOW-FIBER MODEL
Louie and colleagues (50) used a hollow-fiber model to analyze the PK/PD index of
avibactam in combination with ceftaroline against two K. pneumoniae isolates (one
expressing KPC-2, SHV-27, and TEM-1 and the other expressing CTX-M-15) and against
an E. cloacae isolate expressing stably derepressed AmpC. In the first set of experi-
ments, different doses of avibactam were administered as a continuous infusion in the
presence of ceftaroline concentrations simulating human PK profiles following a dose
of 600 mg q8h. These dose-ranging experiments enabled an identification of the
effective 24-h AUC for avibactam, which informed the design of the dose fractionation
experiments to identify the avibactam PK/PD index (50).
For the dose fractionation experiments, different dosage regimens of avibactam
were given together with ceftaroline 600 mg q8h (50). In these experiments, each
avibactam dosage regimen was designed to generate approximately the same 24-h
AUC as that provided by an avibactam continuous infusion of 8 mg/liter (24-h AUC of
192 mg · h/liter). Four regimens of avibactam in combination with ceftaroline were
administered: avibactam given as a continuous infusion, the whole exposure adminis-
tered once daily, half the exposure administered twice daily, and one third of the total
exposure administered q8h. One major difference between the studies of avibactam in
combination with ceftaroline and those of the combination with ceftazidime or aztreo-
nam was that instead of 24-h killing and the prevention of growth, the endpoint of the

June 2018 Volume 62 Issue 6 e02446-17 aac.asm.org 10

Minireview Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy

Downloaded from http://aac.asm.org/ on May 18, 2019 by guest

FIG 4 Dose fractionation study for avibactam in combination with ceftaroline 600 mg q8h against a K.
pneumoniae strain in the hollow-fiber model. AUC, area under the concentration-time curve. Republished
from reference 50.

ceftaroline studies was the maintenance of a reduced bacterial CFU/ml and the
prevention of outgrowth of resistant variants over 10 or 13 days (50). In dose fraction-
ation experiments with K. pneumoniae expressing KPC-2, SHV-27, and TEM-1 (Fig. 4), the
administration of the avibactam total daily dose (as a single dose) once daily failed by
day 2 of treatment. Moreover, giving one half of the avibactam total daily dose every
12 h failed by day 4. In contrast, the more fractionated schedules of avibactam
administration (where avibactam was given q8h or as a continuous infusion over 24 h)
were successful in suppressing the emergence of resistance for the duration of the
experiment (Fig. 4). Similar results were achieved with dose fractionation experiments
using the K. pneumoniae CTX-M-15 isolate or the E. cloacae isolate. As the more
fractionated avibactam dosage regimens maximized the time above the threshold
concentration, these experiments showed that the activity of avibactam in combination
with ceftaroline was clearly linked to f T⬎CT more closely than it was to fAUC (50).

PK/PD STUDIES OF AVIBACTAM IN COMBINATION WITH CEFTAROLINE OR

CEFTAZIDIME IN A SINGLE-COMPARTMENT CONSTANT-VOLUME FERMENTER
MODEL IN VITRO
MacGowan and colleagues (51) fractionated doses of avibactam combined with
constant q8h dosing of either ceftazidime or ceftaroline in a one-compartment in vitro
PK/PD model against each of three ceftazidime- and ceftaroline-resistant ␤-lactamase-
producing isolates of Enterobacteriaceae (CTX-M-type-producing E. coli, stably dere-
pressed AmpC-producing E. cloacae, and KPC-type-producing K. pneumoniae). Unlike
the results of the hollow-fiber studies and neutropenic mouse models described above,
the activity of avibactam in potentiating the bacterial killing by ceftazidime and
ceftaroline over 24 h more closely fit the PK/PD indices fAUC and fCmax than the index
f T⬎CT. The authors proposed that different experimental designs might produce
differently distributed data. It was suggested that the greater number of observations
at 0% f T⬎CT and 100% f T⬎CT in these experiments could have resulted in a better
correlation to AUC and Cmax rather than the time above the threshold, in contrast to the
other experiments described above which had fewer observations at the extremes. This
potentially explains the different conclusions from this model compared with those

June 2018 Volume 62 Issue 6 e02446-17 aac.asm.org 11

Minireview Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy

TABLE 5 PK/PD indices for avibactam acting in combination with ␤-lactams under conditions of dynamic rising and falling concentration-
time curves
␤-Lactamase inhibitor ␤-Lactam Model Period (days) Derived PK/PD index Reference
Avibactam Ceftazidime Hollow fiber; entericsa 1 CT ⱖ0.5 mg/liter maintained 43
␤-lactamase-null phenotype
Avibactam Ceftazidime Neutropenic mouse thigh; P. aeruginosa 1 f T⬎CT 1 mg/liter 44
Avibactam Ceftazidime Neutropenic mouse lung; P. aeruginosa 1 f T⬎CT 1 mg/liter 44
Avibactam Aztreonam Hollow fiber; enterics 1 f T⬎CT 2–2.5 mg/liter 49
Avibactam Aztreonam Neutropenic mouse thigh; enterics 1 f T⬎CT 2–2.5 mg/liter 49
Avibactam Ceftaroline Hollow fiber; enterics 10–13 f T⬎CT 50
Avibactam Ceftazidime Constant-volume fermenter; enterics 1 fAUC 51
Avibactam Ceftaroline Constant-volume fermenter; enterics 1 fAUC 51
aEnterics, Enterobacteriaceae.

Downloaded from http://aac.asm.org/ on May 18, 2019 by guest

from the other studies with avibactam combinations, all of which concluded that the
avibactam f T⬎CT was the more closely fitting PK/PD index for avibactam than fAUC
(51).

COMPARISON BETWEEN MODELS AND AVIBACTAM COMBINATIONS

Table 5 summarizes the PK/PD indices that best fit avibactam in the studies
discussed above. For each combination, concentration-time profiles simulating pre-
dicted concentrations in human patients following dosing with clinically achievable
regimens were studied in hollow-fiber models. Dose fractionation experiments were
also conducted in neutropenic mice infection models for the ceftazidime-avibactam and
aztreonam-avibactam combinations and in an in vitro single-compartment constant-
volume fermenter model for ceftazidime-avibactam and ceftaroline fosamil-avibactam.
Despite the different endpoints and durations of the experiments, in most of the
models and across all the ␤-lactam combinations, there was an optimal fit between PD
effect and avibactam f T⬎CT. The magnitude of CT varied between 0.5 mg/liter and 2.5
mg/liter depending on the model and the partner ␤-lactam. It is not unexpected for the
CT of avibactam to be different depending on the partner ␤-lactam; therefore, it is
important to study PK/PD indices for each different combination. The only exception
has been that in the single-compartment fermenter model in which combinations of
ceftazidime and ceftaroline (but not aztreonam) were studied, a better fit was obtained
between the activity of avibactam and the index fAUC (and fCmax) than between the
activity of avibactam and f T⬎CT in restoring the activities of both of these ␤-lactams
(51). As discussed above, this could be a function of the experimental conditions in this
particular analysis which resulted in a clustering of “time above” parameters at the
extremes.

CLINICAL CONTEXT
The PKs of avibactam in combination with ceftazidime have been well characterized
in population PK models developed using patient PK data from the ceftazidime-
avibactam phase 3 studies (52). Joint target attainment was calculated using the
models such that PTA was based on each patient achieving both the ceftazidime and
avibactam targets simultaneously. From these models, the ceftazidime and avibactam
PK/PD target plasma concentrations of ⬎8 mg/liter for ceftazidime and ⬎1 mg/liter for
avibactam for more than 50% of the dosing interval have been predicted to be
achieved in over 90% of patients dosed with ceftazidime-avibactam 2,000 mg ⫹ 500
mg q8h (52). These calculations of joint PTA supported ceftazidime-avibactam dosage
selection and clinical breakpoint analyses (45).
The efficacy of the selected ceftazidime-avibactam dosage regimen with respect to
comparators has been demonstrated across five phase 3 clinical trials, including a study
which included only patients with infections caused by ceftazidime-resistant pathogens
(53–57). It is important to consider whether antibiotic dosing strategies are adequate
for the suppression of resistance in key target pathogens. Although the evidence for
the emergence of resistance to ceftazidime-avibactam is limited, there have been

June 2018 Volume 62 Issue 6 e02446-17 aac.asm.org 12

Minireview Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy

isolated reports of the development of ceftazidime-avibactam resistance in some

KPC-producing K. pneumoniae (58). In vitro models can be used to help identify PK/PD
targets predicted to minimize the risk of selecting for resistance to the antibiotic in
patients (19). This has been investigated for ceftaroline fosamil-avibactam (50) but not
for ceftazidime-avibactam or aztreonam-avibactam.

CONCLUSIONS
The primary reason for conducting nonclinical PK/PD studies for antibiotics is to
define quantitative PK/PD exposure targets that can be used to analyze the PTA among
simulated populations of patients and thus guide the selection of appropriate doses for
assessment in phase 2 and 3 clinical trials. For ␤-lactam–␤-lactamase inhibitor combi-
nations, it is important to determine the PK/PD index and magnitude for both com-
ponents, as described here for avibactam in combination with the ␤-lactams ceftazi-

Downloaded from http://aac.asm.org/ on May 18, 2019 by guest

dime, aztreonam, and ceftaroline fosamil. Across all combinations, with the exception
of one experimental model in which combinations of ceftazidime or ceftaroline fosamil
with avibactam were investigated (51), the PD of avibactam in restoring the antibac-
terial activity of the three partner ␤-lactams was found to be time dependent rather
than concentration dependent (i.e., linked to f T⬎CT rather than fAUC). The magnitude
of CT varied depending on the model and the partner ␤-lactam, emphasizing the
importance of studying PK/PD indices for each different ␤-lactam–␤-lactamase inhibitor
combination. For ceftazidime-avibactam, PTA analyses based on the achievement of
the preclinical PK/PD targets described here were used to guide the selection of
ceftazidime-avibactam dosage regimens used in phase 3 clinical trials, which have
demonstrated clinical efficacy similar to that of carbapenems in patients with cIAI, cUTI,
and nosocomial pneumonia, including those with infections caused by ceftazidime-
resistant pathogens (53–57).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This review was sponsored by AstraZeneca and Pfizer.
AstraZeneca’s rights to ceftazidime-avibactam, aztreonam-avibactam, and ceftaro-
line fosamil-avibactam were acquired by Pfizer in December 2016. W.W.N. is a former
employee of and current shareholder in AstraZeneca and was a paid consultant to
AstraZeneca and a principal in a partnership that was paid by Pfizer in connection with
the development of the manuscript. S.D. is a former employee of and shareholder in
AstraZeneca; P.N. is a former employee of AstraZeneca and still retains shares in
AstraZeneca. T.R. is an employee of and shareholder in Allergan. I.A.C. is a former
employee of Allergan and still retains shares in Allergan.
Editorial support was provided by Sirisha Bulusu, MBiochem at Prime, Knutsford, UK,
and was funded by AstraZeneca and Pfizer. The opinions, conclusions, and interpreta-
tion of the data in this review are the responsibility of the authors.

REFERENCES
1. Mager DE, Woo S, Jusko WJ. 2009. Scaling pharmacodynamics from in Quantifying and communicating uncertainty in preclinical human dose-
vitro and preclinical animal studies to humans. Drug Metab Pharmaco- prediction. CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol 4:243–254. https://doi
kinet 24:16 –24. https://doi.org/10.2133/dmpk.24.16. .org/10.1002/psp4.32.
2. Bueters T, Gibson C, Visser SA. 2015. Optimization of human dose 6. Ambrose PG, Bhavnani SM, Rubino CM, Louie A, Gumbo T, Forrest A,
prediction by using quantitative and translational pharmacology in drug Drusano GL. 2007. Pharmacokinetics-pharmacodynamics of antimicro-
discovery. Future Med Chem 7:2351–2369. https://doi.org/10.4155/fmc bial therapy: it’s not just for mice anymore. Clin Infect Dis 44:79 – 86.
.15.143. https://doi.org/10.1086/510079.
3. Felmlee MA, Morris ME, Mager DE. 2012. Mechanism-based pharmaco- 7. Ehmann DE, Jahic H, Ross PL, Gu RF, Hu J, Durand-Reville TF, Lahiri S,
dynamic modeling. Methods Mol Biol 929:583– 600. https://doi.org/10 Thresher J, Livchak S, Gao N, Palmer T, Walkup GK, Fisher SL. 2013. Kinetics
.1007/978-1-62703-050-2_21. of avibactam inhibition against class A, C, and D ␤-lactamases. J Biol Chem
4. Lee JY, Garnett CE, Gobburu JV, Bhattaram VA, Brar S, Earp JC, Jadhav PR, 288:27960–27971. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M113.485979.
Krudys K, Lesko LJ, Li F, Liu J, Madabushi R, Marathe A, Mehrotra N, 8. Sader H, Castanheira M, Mendes RE, Flamm RK, Farrell DJ, Jones RN.
Tornoe C, Wang Y, Zhu H. 2011. Impact of pharmacometric analyses on 2015. Ceftazidime-avibactam activity against multidrug-resistant Pseu-
new drug approval and labelling decisions: a review of 198 submissions domonas aeruginosa isolated in U.S. medical centers in 2012 and 2013.
between 2000 and 2008. Clin Pharmacokinet 50:627– 635. https://doi Antimicrob Agents Chemother 59:3656 –3659. https://doi.org/10.1128/
.org/10.2165/11593210-000000000-00000. AAC.05024-14.
5. Sundqvist M, Lundahl A, Nagard MB, Bredberg U, Gennemark P. 2015. 9. Nichols WW, de Jonge BL, Kazmierczak KM, Karlowsky JA, Sahm DF.

June 2018 Volume 62 Issue 6 e02446-17 aac.asm.org 13

Minireview Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy

2016. In vitro susceptibility of global surveillance isolates of Pseudomo- Cephalosporins and aztreonam. Clin Infect Dis 56:1301–1309. https://doi
nas aeruginosa to ceftazidime-avibactam (INFORM 2012 to 2014). Anti- .org/10.1093/cid/cit017.
microb Agents Chemother 60:4743– 4749. https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC 26. Drusano GL. 2004. Antimicrobial pharmacodynamics: critical interactions
.00220-16. of ‘bug and drug’. Nat Rev Microbiol 2:289 –300. https://doi.org/10.1038/
10. de Jonge BL, Karlowsky JA, Kazmierczak KM, Biedenbach DJ, Sahm nrmicro862.
DF, Nichols WW. 2016. In vitro susceptibility to ceftazidime-avibactam 27. Mouton JW, Dudley MN, Cars O, Derendorf H, Drusano GL. 2005. Stan-
of carbapenem-nonsusceptible Enterobacteriaceae isolates collected dardization of pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) terminology
during the INFORM global surveillance study (2012 to 2014). Antimi- for anti-infective drugs: an update. J Antimicrob Chemother 55:601– 607.
crob Agents Chemother 60:3163–3169. https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/dki079.
.03042-15. 28. Dudley MN. 1995. Combination ␤-lactam and ␤-lactamase-inhibitor
11. Allergan. 2018. AVYCAZ (ceftazidime-avibactam) for injection, for intra- therapy: pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic considerations. Am J
venous use. Prescribing information. http://www.allergan.com/assets/ Health Syst Pharm 52:S23–S28.
pdf/avycaz_pi. Accessed 7 February 2018. 29. Andes D, Craig WA. 2002. Animal model pharmacokinetics and
12. Pfizer. 2016. ZAVICEFTA. Summary of product characteristics. http:// pharmacodynamics: a critical review. Int J Antimicrob Agents 19:
www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Product 261–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-8579(02)00022-5.
_Information/human/004027/WC500210234.pdf. Accessed 7 Febru- 30. Craig WA. 2003. Basic pharmacodynamics of antibacterials with clin-
ary 2018. ical applications to the use of ␤-lactams, glycopeptides, and linezolid.

Downloaded from http://aac.asm.org/ on May 18, 2019 by guest

13. Livermore DM, Mushtaq S, Warner M, Zhang J, Maharjan S, Doumith M, Infect Dis Clin North Am 17:479 –501. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0891
Woodford N. 2011. Activities of NXL104 combinations with ceftazidime -5520(03)00065-5.
and aztreonam against carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae. 31. Craig WA. 2007. Pharmacodynamics of antimicrobials: general concepts
Antimicrob Agents Chemother 55:390 –394. https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC and applications, p 1–19. In Nightingale CH, Ambrose PG, Drusano GL,
.00756-10. Murakawa T (ed), Antimicrobial pharmacodynamics in theory and clini-
14. Crandon JL, Nicolau DP. 2013. Human simulated studies of aztreonam cal practice, 2nd ed. Informa Healthcare, New York, NY.
and aztreonam-avibactam to evaluate activity against challenging 32. MacVane SH, Kuti JL, Nicolau DP. 2014. Clinical pharmacodynamics of
Gram-negative organisms, including metallo-␤-lactamase producers. antipseudomonal cephalosporins in patients with ventilator-associated
Antimicrob Agents Chemother 57:3299 –3306. https://doi.org/10.1128/ pneumonia. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 58:1359 –1364. https://doi
AAC.01989-12. .org/10.1128/AAC.01463-13.
15. Biedenbach DJ, Kazmierczak K, Bouchillon SK, Sahm DF, Bradford PA. 33. DeRyke CA, Kuti JL, Nicolau DP. 2007. Reevaluation of current suscepti-
2015. In vitro activity of aztreonam-avibactam against a global collection bility breakpoints for Gram-negative rods based on pharmacodynamic
of Gram-negative pathogens from 2012 and 2013. Antimicrob Agents assessment. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 58:337–344. https://doi.org/10
Chemother 59:4239 – 4248. https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.00206-15. .1016/j.diagmicrobio.2007.01.004.
16. Castanheira M, Sader HS, Farrell DJ, Mendes RE, Jones RN. 2012. Activity 34. Frei CR, Wiederhold NP, Burgess DS. 2008. Antimicrobial breakpoints for
of ceftaroline-avibactam tested against Gram-negative organism popu- Gram-negative aerobic bacteria based on pharmacokinetic-
lations, including strains expressing one or more ␤-lactamases and pharmacodynamic models with Monte Carlo simulation. J Antimicrob Che-
methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus carrying various staphylococ- mother 61:621–628. https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkm536.
cal cassette chromosome mec types. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 35. EUCAST. 2010. Ceftazidime. Rationale for the EUCAST clinical break-
56:4779 – 4785. https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.00817-12. points, version 1.0. http://www.eucast.org/fileadmin/src/media/PDFs/
17. Pfizer 2017. NCT02655419. Determine the PK and safety and tolerability of EUCAST_files/Rationale_documents/Ceftazidime_Rationale_Document
ATM-AVI for the treatment of cIAIs in hospitalized adults (REJUVENATE). _1.0_2010Nov.pdf. Accessed 7 February 2018.
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02655419. Accessed 7 February 2018. 36. Flamm RK, Stone GG, Sader HS, Jones RN, Nichols WW. 2014. Avibactam
18. Forest Laboratories. 2017. NCT01281462. Comparative study of co- reverts the ceftazidime MIC90 of European Gram-negative bacterial
administered ceftaroline fosamil and NXL104 vs. intravenous dorip- clinical isolates to the epidemiological cut-off value. J Chemother 26:
enem in adult subjects with complicated urinary tract infections. 333–338. https://doi.org/10.1179/1973947813Y.0000000145.
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01281462. Accessed 7 Febru- 37. Sader H, Castanheira M, Flamm RK, Farrell DJ, Jones RN. 2014. Antimi-
ary 2018. crobial activity of ceftazidime-avibactam against Gram-negative organ-
19. European Medicines Agency. 2016. Guideline on the use of pharma- isms collected from U.S. medical centers in 2012. Antimicrob Agents
cokinetics and pharmacodynamics in the development of antimicro- Chemother 58:1684 –1692. https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.02429-13.
bial medicinal products. Document EMA/CHMP/594085/2015. Euro- 38. Levasseur P, Girard A-M, Claudon M, Goossens H, Black MT, Coleman K,
pean Medicines Agency, London, United Kingdom. http://www.ema Miossec C. 2012. In vitro antibacterial activity of the ceftazidime-
.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2016/ avibactam (NXL104) combination against Pseudomonas aeruginosa clin-
07/WC500210982.pdf. Accessed 7 February 2018. ical isolates. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 56:1606 –1608. https://doi
20. Nielsen EI, Friberg LE. 2013. Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic model- .org/10.1128/AAC.06064-11.
ing of antibacterial drugs. Pharmacol Rev 65:1053–1090. https://doi.org/ 39. Walkty A, DeCorby M, Lagacé-Wiens P, Karlowsky J, Hoban D, Zhanel G.
10.1124/pr.111.005769. 2011. In vitro activity of ceftazidime combined with NXL104 versus
21. Rex JH, Goldberger M, Eisenstein BI, Harney C. 2014. The evolution of the Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates obtained from patients in Canadian
regulatory framework for antibacterial agents. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1323: hospitals (CANWARD 2009 study). Antimicrob Agents Chemother 55:
11–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.12441. 2992–2994. https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.01696-10.
22. Mouton JW, Brown DF, Apfalter P, Canton R, Giske CG, Ivanova M, 40. Wang X, Zhang F, Zhao C, Wang Z, Nichols WW, Testa R, Li H, Chen H,
MacGowan AP, Rodloff A, Soussy CJ, Steinbakk M, Kahlmeter G. 2012. He W, Wang Q. 2014. In vitro activity of ceftazidime-avibactam and
The role of pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics in setting clinical MIC aztreonam-avibactam against 372 Gram-negative bacilli collected in
breakpoints: the EUCAST approach. Clin Microbiol Infect 18:E37–E45. 2011 and 2012 from 11 teaching hospitals in China. Antimicrob Agents
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-0691.2011.03752.x. Chemother 58:1774 –1778. https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.02123-13.
23. Muller AE, Punt N, Mouton JW. 2013. Optimal exposures of ceftazidime 41. Reference deleted.
predict the probability of microbiological and clinical outcome in the 42. Castanheira M, Farrell SE, Krause KM, Jones RN, Sader HS. 2014. Con-
treatment of nosocomial pneumonia. J Antimicrob Chemother 68: temporary diversity of beta-lactamases among Enterobacteriaceae in the
900 –906. https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/dks468. nine U.S. census regions and ceftazidime-avibactam activity tested
24. Kuti JL, Nicolau DP. 2005. Making the most of surveillance studies: against isolates producing the most prevalent beta-lactamase groups.
summary of the OPTAMA program. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 53: Antimicrob Agents Chemother 58:833– 838. https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC
281–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2005.10.004. .01896-13.
25. Dudley MN, Ambrose PG, Bhavnani SM, Craig WA, Ferraro MJ, Jones RN, 43. Coleman K, Levasseur P, Girard AM, Borgonovi M, Miossec C, Merdjan H,
Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing Subcommittee of the Clinical and Drusano G, Shlaes D, Nichols WW. 2014. Activities of ceftazidime and
Laboratory Standards Institute. 2013. Background and rationale for re- avibactam against ␤-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae in a
vised Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute interpretive criteria hollow-fiber pharmacodynamic model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother
(breakpoints) for Enterobacteriaceae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa: I. 58:3366 –3372. https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.00080-14.

June 2018 Volume 62 Issue 6 e02446-17 aac.asm.org 14

Minireview Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy

44. Berkhout J, Melchers MJ, van Mil AC, Seyedmousavi S, Lagarde CM, ology and Infectious Diseases (ECCMID), Vienna, Austria, 22 to 25 April
Schuck VJ, Nichols WW, Mouton JW. 2016. Pharmacodynamics of cefta- 2017.
zidime and avibactam in neutropenic mice with thigh or lung infection. 53. Mazuski JE, Gasink LB, Armstrong J, Broadhurst H, Stone GG, Rank D,
Antimicrob Agents Chemother 60:368 –375. https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC Llorens L, Newell P, Pachl J. 2016. Efficacy and safety of ceftazidime-
.01269-15. avibactam plus metronidazole versus meropenem in the treatment of
45. European Medicines Agency. 2016. Zavicefta. European public assess- complicated intra-abdominal infection: results from a randomized, con-
ment report. European Medicines Agency, London, United Kingdom. trolled, double-blind, phase 3 program. Clin Infect Dis 62:1380 –1389.
http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciw133.
_-_Public_assessment_report/human/004027/WC500210236.pdf. Ac- 54. Carmeli Y, Armstrong J, Laud PJ, Newell P, Stone G, Wardman A, Gasink
cessed 7 February 2018. LB. 2016. Ceftazidime-avibactam or best available therapy in patients
46. Cerexa, Inc. 2014. Briefing package, NDA 206494: ceftazidime-avibactam. with ceftazidime-resistant Enterobacteriaceae and Pseudomonas aerugi-
Cerexa, Inc., Alameda, CA. https://www.pharmamedtechbi.com/~/media/ nosa complicated urinary tract infections or complicated intra-
Supporting%20Documents/The%20Pink%20Sheet%20DAILY/2014/ abdominal infections (REPRISE): a randomised, pathogen-directed,
December/12314%20FDA%20briefing%20docs.pdf. phase 3 study. Lancet Infect Dis 16:661– 673. https://doi.org/10.1016/
47. Nicolau DP. 2015. Focus on ceftazidime-avibactam for optimizing S1473-3099(16)30004-4.
outcomes in complicated intra-abdominal and urinary tract infec- 55. Wagenlehner FM, Sobel JD, Newell P, Armstrong J, Huang X, Stone GG,
tions. Expert Opin Investig Drugs 24:1261–1273. https://doi.org/10 Yates K, Gasink LB. 2016. Ceftazidime-avibactam versus doripenem for

Downloaded from http://aac.asm.org/ on May 18, 2019 by guest

.1517/13543784.2015.1062873.
the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections, including acute
48. Mawal Y, Critchley IA, Riccobene TA, Talley AK. 2015. Ceftazidime-
pyelonephritis: RECAPTURE, a phase 3 randomized trial program. Clin
avibactam for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections and
Infect Dis 63:754 –762. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciw378.
complicated intra-abdominal infections. Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol
56. Qin X, Tran BG, Kim M, Wang L, Nguyen D, Chen Q, Song J, Laud PJ,
8:691–707. https://doi.org/10.1586/17512433.2015.1090874.
Stone GG, Chow JW. 2017. A randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study
49. Singh R, Kim A, Tanudra MA, Harris JJ, McLaughlin RE, Patey S, O’Donnell
comparing the efficacy and safety of ceftazidime/avibactam plus met-
JP, Bradford PA, Eakin AE. 2015. Pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics of
ronidazole versus meropenem for complicated intra-abdominal infec-
a ␤-lactam and ␤-lactamase inhibitor combination: a novel approach for
aztreonam/avibactam. J Antimicrob Chemother 70:2618 –2626. https:// tions in hospitalised adults in Asia. Int J Antimicrob Agents 49:579 –588.
doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkv132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2017.01.010.
50. Louie A, Castanheira M, Liu W, Grasso C, Jones RN, Williams G, Critchley 57. Torres A, Zhong N, Pachl J, Timsit JF, Kollef M, Chen Z, Song J, Taylor
I, Thye D, Brown D, Vanscoy B, Kulawy R, Drusano GL. 2012. Pharmaco- D, Laud PJ, Stone GG, Chow JW. 2018. Ceftazidime-avibactam versus
dynamics of ␤-lactamase inhibition by NXL104 in combination with meropenem in nosocomial pneumonia, including ventilator-
ceftaroline: examining organisms with multiple types of ␤-lactamases. associated pneumonia (REPROVE): a randomised, double-blind, phase
Antimicrob Agents Chemother 56:258 –270. https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC 3 non-inferiority trial. Lancet Infect Dis 18:285–295. https://doi.org/
.05005-11. 10.1016/S1473-3099(17)30747-8.
51. MacGowan A, Tomaselli S, Noel A, Bowker K. 2017. The pharmacody- 58. Shields RK, Chen L, Cheng S, Chavda KD, Press EG, Snyder A, Pandey R,
namics of avibactam in combination with ceftaroline or ceftazidime Doi Y, Kreiswirth BN, Nguyen MH, Clancy CJ. 2017. Emergence of
against ␤-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae studied in an in vitro ceftazidime-avibactam resistance due to plasmid-borne blaKPC-3 muta-
model of infection. J Antimicrob Chemother 72:762–769. https://doi.org/ tions during treatment of carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae
10.1093/jac/dkw480. infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 61:e02097-16. https://doi.org/
52. Das S, Riccobene T, Carrothers T, Wright J, Macpherson M, Lovern M, 10.1128/AAC.02097-16.
Hing J, Xiong Y, Taylor A, Comisar C. 2017. Pharmacokinetic/ 59. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. 2013. Performance standards
pharmacodynamic validation of the ceftazidime-avibactam dose in pa- for antimicrobial susceptibility testing; 23rd informational supplement.
tients with nosocomial pneumonia, including ventilator-associated CLSI document M100-S23. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute,
pneumonia, poster P1185. 27th European Congress of Clinical Microbi- Wayne, PA.

June 2018 Volume 62 Issue 6 e02446-17 aac.asm.org 15