In vitro antibacterial activity of cephalexin on Escherichia coli in serum and urine from dogs
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14409/favecv.v11i1/2.4559Keywords:
actividad antibacteriana, cefalexina, Escherichia coli, suero canino, orina caninaAbstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the activity of cephalexin and the intrinsic antibacterial activity of dog serum and urine on six strains of Escherichia coli, using a dynamic one step dilution in vitro one compartmental model, simulating cephalexin concentrations in these biological fluids during its elimination phase after the intravenous administration. The minimum inhibitory concentration of cephalexin for all strains was 16 µg/mL at standard pH value of 7.4 and at values of 6.5 and 5.5. The CIM was not modified by serum or urine. In the dynamic in vitro model, the efficacy of cephalexin in standard culture medium was 57.2 ± 3.95%, while in presence of serum this increased to 74.3 ± 8.59%, although at higher concentrations than those present in serum, the efficacy of cephalexin in urine was 68.7 ± 4.19%. In conclusion, our study emphasizes the important role of the antibacterial activity of these biological fluids in the success of the antibiotic therapy and proposes the concept of total or global bactericidal effect.
References
BAGGOT, J. D. 2001. The Physiological Basis of Veterinary Clinical Pharmacology. Blackwell Science, Oxford.
BEGG, E. J.; B. A. PEDDLE; S.T. CHAMBERS & D. R. BOSWELL. 1992. Comparison of gentamicin dosing regimens using an in vitro model. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 29:427-433.
CERRA, M.; A. FUCHS; S. STIEFEL; D. GUMIY; U. NOTARO; P. DÍAZ; E. BARONI; E. PICCO & E. FORMENTINI. 2011. Actividad in vitro de tulatromicina sobre cepas de Staphylococcus aureus en presencia de suero y leucocitos bovinos. Aceptado para su publicación en el Volumen 10 n°1 de Revista FAVE, Sección Ciencias Veterinarias (ISSN 1666-938X).
CLSI, CLINICAL AND LABORATORY STANDARDS INSTITUTE. 2008. Development of in vitro susceptibility testing criteria and quality control parameters for veterinary antimicrobial agents; Approved guideline. 3rd Edition, Document M37-A3. Volume 28, Number 7. Wayne, Pennsylvania USA.
CHAMBERS, S. T.; B. A. PEDDIE; R. A. ROBSON; E. J. BEGG & D. R. BOSWELL 1991. Antimicrobial effects of lomefloxacin in vitro. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 27: 481-489.
CHARALABOPOULOS, K.; G. KARACHALIOS; D. BALTOGIANNIS; A. CHARALABOPOULOS; X. GIANNAKOPOULOS
& N. SOFIKITIS. 2003. Penetration of antimicrobial agents into the prostate. Chemother. 49:269-279.
DeLEO, F. R.; B. A. DIEP & M. OTTO. 2009. Host defense and pathogenesis in Staphylococcus aureus infection. Infect. Dis. Clin. N. Am. 23:17-34.
DOWLIN, P. M. 1996. Antimicrobial therapy of urinary tract infections. Can. Vet. J. 37: 438-441.
FIRSOV, A. A.; S.N. VOSTROV; A. A. SHEVCHENKO & G. CORNAGLIA. 1997. Parameters of bacterial killing and regrowkinetics and antimicrobial effect examined in terms of area under the concentration-time curve relationships: actions of ciprofloxacin against Escherichia coli in an in vitro model. Antimicrob. Agents and Chemother. 41(6): 1281-1287.
KRISTIAN, S.A., A.M. TIMMER; G.Y. LIU; X. LAUTH; N. SALMAN; Y. ROSENFELD; Y. SHAI; R.I. GALLO & V. NIZET. 2007. Impairement of innate killing mechanism by bacterisotatic antibiotics. The FASEB J. 21:1107-1116.
McKENZIE, F.M.; K.E. MILNE & I.M. GOULD. 2002. Calculation of composite recovery time: a new pharmacodynamic parameter. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 50: 281-284.
MEHRZAD, J.; L. DUCHATEAU & C. BURVENICH. 2009. Phagocytic and bactericidal activity of blood of milk-resident neutrophyls against Staphylococcus aureus in primiparus and multiparus cows during early lactation. Vet. Microbiol. 134:106-112.
MUELLER, M.; A. DE LA PEÑA & H. DERENDORF. 2004. Issues in pharmacoki-netics and pharmacodynamics of anti-infective agents: kill curves versus MIC. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 48: 369-377.
MULVEY, M.A.; J.D. SCHILLING; J.J. MARTINEZ & S.J. HULTGREN. 2000. Bad bugs and beleaguered bladders: interplay between uropathogenic Escherichia coli and innate host defenses. PNAS 97(16):8829-8835.
LIU, P.; M. MULLER & H. DERENDORF. 2002. Rational dosing of antibiotics: the use of plasma concentrations versus time concentrations. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents. 19:285-290.
ODENHOLT, I. 2001. Pharmacodynamic effects of subinhibitory antibiotic concentrations. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents. 17: 1-8.
PICCO, E.; M. CERRA; S. STIEFEL; P. MICHEL & E. FORMENTINI. 2011. Pharmacokinetic-Pharmacodynamic study of cephalexin and gentamicin antibacterial activity against sensible strains using a simple one-compartment in vitro model. Rev. de Méd. Vét. 162 (1) 45-49.
SABATH, L.D. 1978. Six factors that increase the activity of antibiotics in vivo. Infection 6 Suppl. 1 (S67).
SUMIRTAPURA, Y.C.; J.S. PAMUDJI; N. INGRIYANI; W. SULISTIYO & H. SUHALIM 2004. Urinary excretion profiles of four oral cephalosporines in indonesian Healthy Subjetcs. Acta Phar. Indo. 29(2):50-58.
TOUTAIN, P.L.; J.R.E. DEL CASTILLO & A. BOUSQUET-MÉLOU. 2002. The pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic approach to a rational dosage regimen for antibiotics. Res. Vet. Sci. 73: 105-114.
WHITE, C.A. & R. TOOTHAKER. 1985. Influence of ampicillin elimination half-life on in vitro bactericidal effect. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 26: 71-79.
WHITE, R.L. 2001. What in vitro models of infection can and cannot do?: potential drawbacks of in vitro pharmacodynamic studies. Pharmacother. 21(11S).
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
FAVE Sección Ciencias Veterinarias ratifies the open access model, in which contents (in full) are available free to anyone in the internet. The costs of production and publication are not transfered to the authors. This policy intends to break social and economical barriers that generate inequities in the access to information, and for the publication of research results.
All articles can be accessed at http://bibliotecavirtual.unl.edu.ar/publicaciones/index.php/FAVEveterinaria/issue/current/, under license Creative CommonsAtribución-NoComercial-Compartir Igual 4.0 Internacional.
