Evidence Hub

Protection of hamsters from mortality by reducing fecal moxifloxacin concentration with DAV131A in a model of moxifloxacin-induced Clostridium difficile colitis

Charles Burdet, Sakina Sayah-Jeanne, Thu Thuy Nguyen, Christine Miossec, Nathalie Saint-Lu, Mark Pulse, William Weiss, Antoine Andremont et al.

Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, American Society for Microbiology, 2017, 2017

20 citations

Abstract

ABSTRACT Lowering the gut exposure to antibiotics during treatments can prevent microbiota disruption. We evaluated the effects of an activated charcoal-based adsorbent, DAV131A, on the fecal free moxifloxacin concentration and mortality in a hamster model of moxifloxacin-induced Clostridium difficile infection. A total of 215 hamsters receiving moxifloxacin subcutaneously (day 1 [D1] to D5) were orally infected at D3 with C. difficile spores. They received various doses (0 to 1,800 mg/kg of body weight/day) and schedules (twice a day [BID] or three times a day [TID]) of DAV131A (D1 to D8). Moxifloxacin concentrations and C. difficile counts were determined at D3, and mortality was determined at D12. We compared mortality rates, moxifloxacin concentrations, and C. difficile counts according to DAV131A regimen and modeled the links between DAV131A regimen, moxifloxacin concentration, and mortality. All hamsters that received no DAV131A died, but none of those that received 1,800 mg/kg/day died. Significant dose-dependent relationships between DAV131A dose and (i) mortality, (ii) moxifloxacin concentration, and (iii) C. difficile count were evidenced. Mathematical modeling suggested that (i) lowering the moxifloxacin concentration at D3, which was 58 μg/g (95% confidence interval [CI] = 50 to 66 μg/g) without DAV131A, to 17 μg/g (14 to 21 μg/g) would reduce mortality by 90%; and (ii) this would be achieved with a daily DAV131A dose of 703 mg/kg (596 to 809 mg/kg). In this…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a preprint, done in animal, not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free