Using machine learning to optimize antibiotic combinations: dosing strategies for meropenem and polymyxin B against carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii. (September 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Smith, N.M.; Lenhard, J.R.; Boissonneault, K.R.; Landersdorfer, C.B.; Bulitta, J.B.; Holden, P.N.; Forrest, A.; Nation, R.L.; Li, J.; Tsuji, B.T.
• Is Part Of: Clinical microbiology and infection. Volume 26:Number 9(2020)
• Page Start: 1207
• Page End: 1213
• Publication Date: 2020-09
• Subjects: Acinetobacter baumannii -- Antibiotic resistance -- Combination therapy -- Genetic algorithm -- Machine learning -- Mechanism-based model -- Meropenem -- Pharmacodynamics -- Pharmacometrics -- Polymyxin; Medical microbiology -- Periodicals; Diagnostic microbiology -- Periodicals; Communicable diseases -- Periodicals; Infection -- Periodicals; 616.01
• DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2020.02.004
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1198-743X

Abstract

Abstract: Objectives: Increased rates of carbapenem-resistant strains of Acinetobacter baumannii have forced clinicians to rely upon last-line agents, such as the polymyxins, or empirical, unoptimized combination therapy. Therefore, the objectives of this study were: (a) to evaluate the in vitro pharmacodynamics of meropenem and polymyxin B (PMB) combinations against A. baumannii; (b) to utilize a mechanism-based mathematical model to quantify bacterial killing; and (c) to develop a genetic algorithm (GA) to define optimal dosing strategies for meropenem and PMB. Methods: A. baumannii (N16870; MICmeropenem = 16 mg/L, MICPMB = 0.5 mg/L) was studied in the hollow-fibre infection model (initial inoculum 10 8 cfu/mL) over 14 days against meropenem and PMB combinations. A mechanism-based model of the data and population pharmacokinetics of each drug were used to develop a GA to define the optimal regimen parameters. Results: Monotherapies resulted in regrowth to ~10 10 cfu/mL by 24 h, while combination regimens employing high-intensity PMB exposure achieved complete bacterial eradication (0 cfu/mL) by 336 h. The mechanism-based model demonstrated an SC50 (PMB concentration for 50% of maximum synergy on meropenem killing) of 0.0927 mg/L for PMB-susceptible subpopulations versus 3.40 mg/L for PMB-resistant subpopulations. The GA had a preference for meropenem regimens that improved the %T > MIC via longer infusion times and shorter dosing intervals. The GA predicted that treating 90% of simulated subjects harbouring a 10 8 cfu/mL starting inoculum to a point of 10 0 cfu/mL would require a regimen of meropenem 19.6 g/day 2 h prolonged infusion (2 hPI) q5h + PMB 5.17 mg/kg/day 2 hPI q6h (where the 0 h meropenem and PMB doses should be 'loaded' with 80.5% and 42.2% of the daily dose, respectively). Conclusion: This study provides a methodology leveraging in vitro experimental data, a mathematical pharmacodynamic model, and population pharmacokinetics provide a possible avenue to optimize treatment regimens beyond the use of the 'traditional' indices of antibiotic action.