No abstract

No abstract

A deep understanding of an antimicrobial’s critical pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties is crucial towards optimizing its use in patients and bolstering the drug development program. With the growing threat of antimicrobial resistance and decline in antimicrobial development, the advancement of complex and rigorous pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies over a short time span has renewed confidence in the value of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies and allowed it to become fundamental component of a robust drug development program with high chances of successful approval. In addition, recent guidance by various regulatory bodies have reinforced that a strong and dedicated focus on pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics throughout research and development lead to the use of an optimized dosing regimen in Phase 3 trials, improving the probability of drug approval. The objective of this review is to demonstrate the importance of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies in the drug development decision-making process by highlighting the developments in pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic methods and discuss the role of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies in antimicrobial successes and failures.

Treatment of infections due to Acinetobacter baumannii often involves the use of multiple antibiotics simultaneously as combination therapy, but it is unknown which antibiotics are best used together. Tetracycline agents such as minocycline and tigecycline maintain good activity against A. baumannii and are often used with one or more other agents to achieve better killing of the bacteria.

Perioperative anaphylaxis is a rare, but life-threatening hypersensitivity reaction for patients undergoing surgical procedures. Sugammadex is a relatively new drug used to reverse the neuromuscular blockade of specific anesthetics in surgery. Several case reports indicate that there may be a risk of anaphylaxis associated with the use of sugammadex This review examines the literature in order to evaluate the strength of the association between sugammadex use and anaphylaxis. A query of PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science was conducted using a combination of terms to identify relevant articles from inception until March 9, 2020. We included any primary study that identified sugammadex as a probable causative agent based on the World Allergy Organization diagnostic criteria for anaphylaxis. A total of 24 articles were reviewed. Across the three randomized controlled trials, there were only four cases of anaphylaxis identified. Incidence of anaphylaxis was reported in only one trial at 0.33%. Two retrospective observational studies conducted in Japan identified cases of anaphylaxis, with incidences of 0.02 and 0.04%. Among 19 case reports and series, 25 patient cases of anaphylaxis were confirmed via allergy testing to be caused by sugammadex or sugammadex–rocuronium complex. Commonly reported symptoms included hypotension, erythema, and decreased oxygen saturation. Based on the findings of this review, there appears to be a rare, but serious, association of sugammadex-induced perioperative anaphylaxis with an incidence between 0.02 and 0.04% in observational studies. It is unclear whether sugammadex on its own or in complex with rocuronium triggers this reaction, but it is clearly involved in inducing anaphylaxis. Further population studies are needed to get a more accurate global incidence rate, and more detailed allergy testing is required to better describe which step of the sugammadex reversal pathway initiates the anaphylactic attack.