Real-life effectiveness of anti-malarial treatment regimens: what are we aiming for?

Three-day artemisinin-based combination therapy (ACT) is the current standard of care for the treatment of malaria. However, specific drug resistance associated with reduced efficacy of ACT has been observed, therefore necessitating the clinical development of new anti-malarial drugs and drug combinations. Previously, Single Encounter Radical Cure and Prophylaxis (SERCAP) has been proposed as ideal target-product-profile for any new anti-malarial drug regimen as this would improve treatment adherence besides ensuring complete cure and prevention of early reinfection. Arguably, this concept may not be ideal as it (1) necessitates administration of an excessively high dose of drug to achieve plasmodicidal plasma levels for a sufficient time span, (2) increases the risk for drug related adverse drug reactions, and (3) leaves the patient with a one-time opportunity to achieve-or not-cure by a single drug intake. Over the past years, SERCAP has led to the halt of promising drug development programmes, leading to potentially unnecessary attrition in the anti-malarial development pipeline. One proposition could be the concept of single-day multi-dose regimens as a potentially better alternative, as this allows to (1) administer a lower dose of the drug at each time-point leading to better tolerability and safety, (2) increase treatment adherence based on the intake of the anti-malarial drug within 24 h when malaria-related symptoms are still present, and (3) have more than one opportunity for adequate intake of the drug in case of early vomiting or other factors causing reduced bioavailability. In line with a recently published critical viewpoint on the concept of SERCAP, an alternative proposition is-in contrast to the current World Health Organization (WHO) treatment guidelines-to aim for less than three days, but still multiple-dose anti-malarial treatment regimens. This may help to strike the optimal balance between improving treatment adherence, maximizing treatment effectiveness, while keeping attrition of new drugs and drug regimens as low as possible.

Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic analysis of ceftazidime/avibactam and fosfomycin combinations in an in vitro hollow fiber infection model against multidrug-resistant Escherichia coli.

IMPORTANCE: Mechanistic understanding of pharmacodynamic interactions is key for the development of rational antibiotic combination therapies to increase efficacy and suppress the development of resistances. Potent tools to provide those insights into pharmacodynamic drug interactions are semi-mechanistic modeling and simulation techniques. This study uses those techniques to provide a detailed understanding with regard to the direction and strength of the synergy of ceftazidime-avibactam and ceftazidime-fosfomycin in a clinical Escherichia coli isolate expressing extended spectrum beta-lactamase (CTX-M-15 and TEM-4) and carbapenemase (OXA-244) genes. Enhanced killing effects in combination were identified as a driver of the synergy and were translated from static time-kill experiments into the dynamic hollow fiber infection model. These findings in combination with a suppression of the emergence of resistance in combination emphasize a potential clinical benefit with regard to increased efficacy or to allow for dose reductions with maintained effect sizes to avoid toxicity.

Population Pharmacokinetics of Busulfan and Its Metabolite Sulfolane in Patients with Myelofibrosis Undergoing Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation.

For patients with myelofibrosis, allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) remains the only curative treatment to date. Busulfan-based conditioning regimens are commonly used, although high inter-individual variability (IIV) in busulfan drug exposure makes individual dose selection challenging. Since data regarding the IIV in patients with myelofibrosis are sparse, this study aimed to develop a population pharmacokinetic (PopPK) model of busulfan and its metabolite sulfolane in patients with myelofibrosis. The influence of patient-specific covariates on the pharmacokinetics of drug and metabolite was assessed using non-linear mixed effects modeling in NONMEM®. We obtained 523 plasma concentrations of busulfan and its metabolite sulfolane from 37 patients with myelofibrosis. The final model showed a population clearance (CL) and volume of distribution (Vd) of 0.217 L/h/kg and 0.82 L/kg for busulfan and 0.021 L/h/kg and 0.65 L/kg for its metabolite. Total body weight (TBW) and a single-nucleotide polymorphism of glutathione-S-transferase A1 (GSTA1 SNP) displayed a significant impact on volume of distribution and metabolite clearance, respectively. This is the first PopPK-model developed to describe busulfan's pharmacokinetics in patients with myelofibrosis. Incorporating its metabolite sulfolane into the model not only allowed the characterization of the covariate relationship between GSTA1 and the clearance of the metabolite but also improved the understanding of busulfan's metabolic pathway.

Voriconazole Pharmacokinetics Are Not Altered in Critically Ill Patients with Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure and Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy: An Observational Study.

Infection and sepsis are a main cause of acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF). Besides bacteria, molds play a role. Voriconazole (VRC) is recommended but its pharmacokinetics (PK) may be altered by ACLF. Because ACLF patients often suffer from concomitant acute renal failure, we studied the PK of VRC in patients receiving continuous renal replacement therapy (RRT) with ACLF and compared it to PK of VRC in critically ill patients with RRT without concomitant liver failure (NLF). In this prospective cohort study, patients received weight-based VRC. Pre- and post-dialysis membrane, and dialysate samples obtained at different time points were analyzed by high-performance liquid chromatography. An integrated dialysis pharmacometric model was used to model the available PK data. The recommended, 50% lower, and 50% higher doses were analyzed by Monte-Carlo simulation (MCS) for day 1 and at steady-state with a target trough concentration (TC) of 0.5-3mg/L. Fifteen patients were included in this study. Of these, 6 patients suffered from ACLF. A two-compartment model with linear clearance described VRC PK. No difference for central (V1) or peripheral (V2) volumes of distribution or clearance could be demonstrated between the groups. V1 was 80.6L (95% confidence interval: 62.6-104) and V2 106L (65-166) with a body clearance of 4.7L/h (2.87-7.81) and RRT clearance of 1.46L/h (1.29-1.64). MCS showed TC below/within/above target of 10/74/16% on day 1 and 9/39/52% at steady-state for the recommended dose. A 50% lower dose resulted in 26/72/1% (day 1) and 17/64/19% at steady-state and 7/57/37% and 7/27/67% for a 50% higher dose. VRC pharmacokinetics are not significantly influenced by ACLF in critically ill patients who receive RRT. Maintenance dose should be adjusted in both groups. Due to the high interindividual variability, therapeutic drug monitoring seems inevitable.